Prison Suicides

Lord Judd: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many suicides by prisoners there have been in British prisons and penal institutions in each of the last three calendar years.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, there were 288 self-inflicted deaths in the past three years in British prisons and other penal institutions. The figures for each year were: 85 in 1997; 96 in 1998; and 107 in 1999. Those figures include the three separate Prison Services for England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, while the Government obviously inherited a difficult situation in that context, those figures are extremely disturbing? Does he further agree that in a penal system geared to be effective, of which ultimately the greatest test of all is its success in rehabilitation, it is almost unthinkable that there should be any suicides in prison at all? One suicide in prison is one suicide too many. Will my noble friend say what specific action the Government are taking to put the situation right? Will he assure the House that that will have priority second to none in the Government's desire for an effective penal policy?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my noble friend makes a telling and important contribution to the discussion on that subject. I agree with him about the seriousness of the issue: one death in our prison system is one death too many. It is not a victimless tragedy; it also affects the families. The Government are well aware of the issue. Last year's thematic review report from the inspector of prisons, Suicide is Everyone's Concern, expressed those feelings well. I might add that, in statistical terms, the suicide rate in our prison system mirrors almost exactly the suicide rate in the wider population.
	The Prison Service is undertaking a number of measures to try to bring down the number of suicide tragedies in the prison system. Breathing and movement monitors are now being tested. There is extra scrutiny of prisoners considered to be at risk, and at-risk prisoners are assessed early in their incarceration within the system. We are getting to grips with the problem. Important steps and improvements have been made. We shall continue to try to improve the quality of care of prisoners within the system.

Lord Laming: My Lords, will the Minister agree that sometimes tragic acts of suicide are associated with abuse of prisoners by other prisoners, either physically or sexually? Will he further agree that there is a need to ensure that prison staff are alert to such dangers?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. There is no doubt that abuse at an earlier age may be a contributory factor. There are also other apparent contributory factors to what are often extremely tragic and sorry stories: drug abuse, drug dependency, alcohol dependency and other such problems come with the territory. The sad truth is that there is a high concentration of suicide deaths among younger males within the prison population.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, of course every suicide in prison is a tragedy, but may we also have some understanding of the difficult job that prison officers and prison governors do in looking after what are by definition some of the most difficult people in our society, as the Minister has just indicated?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we would all wish to pay tribute to the prison officers and other staff within the Prison Service, who give fantastic support and service to those incarcerated within our prisons. It is to their incredible credit that they undertake many hours of training, in particular, to try to identify those who are vulnerable and at risk within the prison system. The number of deaths that they prevent as a result of their understanding of the problems that prisoners face is incalculable.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that deaths in police custody--not in prisons--fell by 30 per cent in the first eight months of 1999, following a rise of 41 per cent during the previous three years? Does he accept that what is required is to identify at-risk inmates at the point of detention; provision of closed-circuit television in specific cells; and improved training for prison officers in the care of vulnerable people? As a first step, does he further accept that the unacceptably high prison population does not allow that to happen?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I cannot accept the noble Lord's final point. As I have explained, the staff are well trained. They deal with difficult cases and difficult individuals. They are expert in understanding self-harm and how such things come about. We are confident that the improvements outlined as a result of the thematic review completed last year will continue. With regard to deaths in police custody, I confirm that there has been a welcome decline in the statistics in that part of the service, which is rather different from deaths in prison whose explanation is more complex. Deaths in custody in police cells and otherwise have a different cause.

The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, given the fact that bullying by other prisoners is often a major cause of suicide and that bullying is best controlled by adequate staffing levels, will the Minister indicate whether there is a correlation between the rate of suicide and reduced staffing levels?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not aware of a correlation. The numbers are actually so small in themselves that it would be difficult to draw an inference between the two factors highlighted by the right reverend Prelate.

Lord Wigoder: My Lords, is it beyond the wit of man to limit the access of prisoners to the means of committing suicide?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a useful point. Steps have been taken within the Prison Service to improve the design of cells and also to try to limit the ways in which prisoners may be able to use prison furniture to assist them in taking their own lives.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, is it true that some of these suicides follow episodes of sexual or physical abuse by other prisoners? If so, are procedures in place to alert staff to such sexual or physical abuse?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it may well be the case that that is a contributory factor. The causes of suicide are complex and multifaceted, as academic researchers since Durkheim in the early part of the century have realised. Staff are trained to try to identify those prisoners within the prison system who are most at risk. We should be grateful for the quality of that training because it probably prevents many more deaths.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, do records enable the Minister to distinguish between suicides or self-inflicted deaths in establishments run for people who are immigration Act detainees rather than prisoners? Does the noble Lord accept that there is a particularly high risk in places of that kind because many of the inmates will not be able to speak English and therefore it will be more difficult for the staff to identify those who are at risk?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord's final point is important and it is one of which staff in detention centres and prisons will have to be peculiarly mindful. The numbers are small and so it would be hard to draw any inference from the nature of the establishment in which people are secured. I am happy to go away and research the precise figures, but my recollection is that the numbers of suicides in immigration control centres are very small indeed.

Youth Unemployment

Lord Hardy of Wath: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What has been the reduction since May 1997 in the number of young people who are neither in employment nor in training or education; and whether they expect that this number will be further reduced during the next two years.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, at 9 per cent of the population, the number of 16 to 18 year-olds who are not in employment, education or training has remained stable since 1997. Over the same period, the number of unemployed 18 to 24 year-olds has fallen by a quarter and long-term youth unemployment has more than halved. Helping young people who are at risk of social exclusion is a priority of the Government, who are introducing measures to raise educational standards, to provide better services to support young people, and to encourage them to remain in learning.

Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, which suggests that inroads are being made into this most serious and socially corrosive employment problem. However, will my noble friend assure the House that, despite all the many and worthy calls for priority with regard to government resources, this issue will continue to be a priority in order to provide prospects and hope for young people?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I think I can provide the reassurance that my noble friend seeks. The Government are committed to making this issue a major priority. These figures relate to young people who are not doing anything. They are not at school; they are not in further education; they are not in any form of work-based training; nor are they in any form of full-time or part-time education. It is a terrible waste. We have to crack this long-standing problem. We are determined to do so and we are putting forward a comprehensive package in order to reach these young people.

Lord Tope: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the findings of the Children's Society report entitled Still Running that some 16 and 17 year-olds who are forced to leave home by their parents are unable to obtain severe hardship payments of income support because they are unable or unwilling to contact their parents to obtain the necessary documents to verify their identity? Do the Government have any plans to alleviate that problem?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government are aware of the Children's Society report and, indeed, were aware that some young people in this situation face problems in getting not just the financial help but also the advice and support that they may need. The Government are tackling this issue and are putting together a comprehensive integrated service that will support such young people. However, the Government believe that they should be in education and training. The Careers Service therefore has a crucial role to play not just in providing them with advice about education and training, but also in helping them to get the financial support that they may need if they qualify for hardship JSA.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that recently published figures for Scotland show that 31 per cent of young people on New Deal programmes have disappeared without trace, 15 per cent have moved on to other benefits and 22 per cent have left for reasons other than a full-time job? What are the comparable figures for England?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness specific comparable figures in such detail, but I should be very happy to write to her. What I can say is that the New Deal has been a resounding success in providing job opportunities for more than 125,000 young people.

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, since in many parts of Britain, as my noble friend will know, unemployment among disabled people seeking work is up to six times higher than for other people, does she have any figures for the number of young people with disabilities who are still neither in employment nor in training or education?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, once again I cannot give the precise statistics for the number of disabled young people in that category, but I am happy to write to my noble friend. The Government have done a number of different things to improve opportunities for disabled young people, including making available allowances for those who have disabilities and who are full-time students.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, what effort is being made to match these young people with areas of work where there is still great need? The noble Lord, Lord Morris, mentioned disabled people. There are many disabled people who want someone to come and care for them, or even merely to be a presence with them in their own home. Now that there is a basic minimum wage, there is no suggestion that this would be an underpaid occupation. What effort is being made to match the requirements in the health service for many more care assistants with these young people, who would be well suited to train and proceed with these activities?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government are concerned about skill shortages in general, wherever they may be. The task force has been asked to advise the Government on ways in which vacancies can be filled in areas where there are shortages, both regionally and in particular occupations. I entirely accept the noble Baroness's comment about the importance of ensuring that people with disabilities who need either full-time or part-time care should be given proper support. Many young women in particular are interested in doing this work, and training programmes in this area are being extended.

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, recognising the importance of further education in alleviating these difficulties and helping to reduce youth unemployment, I ask my noble friend whether he can confirm that there has been an increase in the number of students in further education.

Baroness Blackstone: Yes, my Lords, there has been a very substantial increase. The Government have a commitment to a further 700,000 students in further education, and there has been a 15 per cent increase in the numbers entering further education over the past four years. Moreover, the Government are also making it easier for 14 to 16 year-olds in full-time schooling to spend some time out of school in work-related training in FE colleges, which we believe will help to motivate some of the more disaffected young people.

Wales: EU Objective One

Lord Roberts of Conwy: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether progress is satisfactory towards implementing the programme for the European Union Objective One area of Wales.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, progress to date is in accordance with the timetable set out in the European Structural Funds Regulations which apply to all member states.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. However, is she fully aware of the crisis that is looming in Wales as a result of the scathing response that the Welsh cabinet has received from the European Commission to its plans for spending Objective One money and the continuing uncertainty with regard to the availability of match funding from the Treasury in order to access the European funds? Can the noble Baroness do anything to dispel the gloom?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to dispel the gloom of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy. With regard to the application to the Commission, I can assure the noble Lord that the reports and rumours that he has heard are merely part of the normal negotiations. All member states submit a plan and a proposal, followed by a period of months during which discussion takes place at official level to flesh out those plans to meet the Commission's requirement. We are fully confident, because the European Commission agreed last November, that the Welsh plans fully meet the admissibility criteria.
	I am also able to set the noble Lord's mind at rest with regard to funding. Given that the Government secured for West Wales and the Valleys a total amount last year of 1.79 billion euros, and that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor negotiated through the night in Berlin to obtain that amount, I can assure the noble Lord that there will be no problem at all in the area of necessary funds to meet the part that it is appropriate to meet with government funding and public sector funding.

Lord Brookman: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the negotiations concluded by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor should not be under-estimated? They achieved what the previous government either did not attempt or failed to achieve. Secondly, will she agree that the Prime Minister's statement that he would not let Wales down is very reassuring?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Yes, my Lords. Some of the press reports about alleged problems in funding may be related to an issue that will be resolved in Ceredigion on Thursday.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the principle of additionality requires that structural funds are not to be used merely to replace national funds, and that the £35 million of match funding announced by Mr Alun Michael, the First Secretary, had already been announced as part of the 1998-99 Supplementary Estimates of the Treasury to meet pressures in roads programmes, the family health service and the schools inspectorate, and had nothing to do with European money? Will the Government undertake to grant matching funds which are additional to the existing Welsh Assembly budget?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government and the Welsh Assembly are fully confident that, for the first year, funds are available in the budget stream in the normal way. For example, as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, will remember, within the funds available to the Welsh Office there was always the necessary money to meet particular needs identified with regard to European funds, etc. However, noble Lords should also be aware that representations are being made by the Assembly and the Secretary of State to the Treasury as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review in order that the case can be fully considered in the light of the overwhelming success of the Government and the large amount of money involved.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, bearing in mind that for every £2 that the United Kingdom sends to--

Noble Lords: Cranborne!

Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, given that the United Kingdom is a net contributor to the European budget rather than a net recipient, will the noble Baroness explain the benefit to Wales in value-for-money terms of routeing our own money through Brussels rather than giving it direct?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it depends on whether the value to the country as a whole, including Wales, of membership of the European Union is considered to be a benefit. Within the CBI, for example, and other groups there are large numbers of people who believe that the benefits far outweigh any of the disadvantages identified by the noble Viscount and possibly the noble Lord who sought to speak before him. Given that money is available, I cannot believe that anyone in the Principality would choose not to take advantage of it. I believe that the majority of people in this country support membership of the European Union.

Lord Hooson: My Lords, with regard to the question put by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, will the noble Baroness agree that Germany--a larger net contributor to European Union funds than the UK--also has to provide match funding for every grant that it receives under this heading? In the larger context, will the noble Baroness draw the attention of her colleagues in government to the importance of this matter? Increasingly in Wales, eyes are cast across the Irish Sea to the prosperity of the Republic of Ireland. This matter is crucial as regards the relationship between the National Assembly and the Government at Westminster. If real match funding, as opposed to artificially dressed-up match funding, is not available, that will merely play into the hands of separatists--of whom I am not one.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that at every stage the money that is available as a result of the success of my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor will meet the criteria set down by the Commission in terms of the appropriate matching of funds, whether public or private.

Victoria History of the Counties of England

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have for the completion of the Victoria History of the Counties of England, and for increasing its accessibility to the public.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government recognise that the Victoria History of the Counties of England is an extremely valuable resource for English archaeologists and historians. Local authorities are the main sponsors of the Victoria County Histories (VCH), although it is for each local authority to decide on the extent to which it chooses to provide sponsorship. Although the Government have no direct role in funding the VCH, the Heritage Lottery Fund has powers to provide assistance for the compilation and publication of comprehensive works of reference relating to an important aspect of the history, natural history or landscape of the UK which are of public benefit. I understand that the VCH is discussing with the Heritage Lottery Fund ways in which the VCH may be developed and made more accessible to the public.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging reply. As noble Lords will be aware, the VCH is a project of great scholarship which is of interest to both academics and historians and members of the public who are keen to learn more about their own locality. The project is only half completed. Does my noble friend agree that, as the VCH was started in 1897 to mark the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Victoria, it would be highly appropriate if a commitment were made to complete it by 2002 to mark the Golden Jubilee of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth? Does my noble friend also agree that a commitment should be made not only to complete the remaining 230 volumes but to make them available on CD-ROM and the Internet? Will my noble friend join me in expressing the hope that the Heritage Lottery Fund will take as generous an attitude as possible when it considers this application for funding?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as to my noble friend's last point, it is not for the Government to intervene in the decisions of the Heritage Lottery Fund, much though some of us may want to do so on occasions. The target that my noble friend sets is an admirable one and may serve to concentrate the minds of many who have the VCH at heart. My noble friend makes a most valuable point about public access. I understand that the submission now before the Heritage Lottery Fund includes improved public access and information and communications technology, without which the VCH would be of service only to the academic community.

Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, no doubt the noble Lord is familiar with that other great series of volumes The County Inventories of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments for England. Can the Minister give an assurance that the reorganisation and disappearance as a separate entity of the Royal Commission will not lead to the demise of that very important and valuable series of publications?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can give that assurance. It is included in the remit of the new body.

Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the immense amount of work which is being done on the rewriting of the VCH for County Durham? Durham is probably the first to do it. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and I are pleased to be patrons of the trust. Is my noble friend further aware that a substantial sum has been raised by the trust's own efforts? Should not that be recognised by the grants that are being made by the appropriate bodies? Any help that the Government can provide in this respect will be greatly appreciated.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the application of the Institute for Historical Research on behalf of the VCH that is now before the Heritage Lottery Fund is half for Durham and half for Oxfordshire. Local sponsorship of the work in Durham is much appreciated. I understand that the proposal for the pilot project to open up the VCH (so to speak) is to concentrate on Darlington, but clearly the demand is for other parts of Durham and the country as well.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, although I accept that the Government's influence over National Lottery funds may be limited, does the Minister agree that often they have been disbursed to causes less worthy than the one now being considered? Does the noble Lord agree that the VCH is unique in Europe? I understand that only the Black Forest in Germany has the same details of local history. Will the Minister use whatever influence he has to persuade the Heritage Lottery Fund to give money to the VCH rather than some other causes, as I am sure that the Government have some influence? A good deal of money is available and I am sure that the VCH deserves it.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that the contributions of noble Lords in the past few minutes have said more than I could ever say. The support for VCH has been unanimous from all quarters of the House, and I know that the Heritage Lottery Fund will take account of what has been said this afternoon.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, will my noble friend accept my apology for the fact that in the previous century I had some responsibility for the VCH for Cheshire and its delays? Will the Minister further note that the recent publication The Roads of Chester, which explains the unique two-tier system of main streets which foreshadowed the now ubiquitous shopping mall, is a fine example of how VCH and other material can be made accessible and enjoyable to the general public?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know for what my noble friend has to apologise, but it sounds as if he has made a further contribution to convince the Heritage Lottery Fund that this is a worthwhile cause.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am sure that the House joins me in wishing good luck to VCH as a very worthy recipient of lottery funds. Can the Minister give the House good news on other funding and assure noble Lords that more lottery money from the Millennium Commission will not be given to shore up the finances of the Millennium Dome?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper is concerned with the Victoria County Histories. I have been very glad to extend it to the range of options open to the Heritage Lottery Fund. However, I believe that the noble Baroness seeks to widen the scope of the Question further than is proper.

Cheques (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]

Viscount Younger of Leckie: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law of Scotland in relation to the effect of the presentation of cheques for payment. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.--(Viscount Younger of Leckie.)
	On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Debate, 2nd February

2nd February

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Baroness Cumberlege set down for tomorrow shall be limited to five hours.--(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Bill [H.L.]

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.--(Lord Whitty.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 87:
	Before Clause 12, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:Local authority executive: responsibility for functions
	(" .--(1) This section makes provision about the way in which, under executive arrangements, a local authority executive which takes the form specified in either section 10(2) or (3) or (4) above is to be responsible for its functions.
	(2) The decisions, proceedings, reports and documents of the executive shall be subject to the provisions of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985.
	(3) No function may be discharged by or on behalf of the executive unless an officer appointed by the head of paid service of the authority is present to record the decision, those present taking the decision and to record any advice given or relevant background papers.
	(4) No decision which would result in expenditure may be taken unless it is consistent with a scheme of delegation approved by the authority.
	(5) All records about decisions of the executive shall be reported to the next meeting of the Council.").

Lord Dixon-Smith: It will become a fact of life that a local authority that chooses to run its affairs through executive arrangements will discover, certainly initially and perhaps always subsequently, that the executive of the authority is clearly under the public eye. It must create great public interest. In future, if the executive chooses to adopt executive arrangements that will be the body or group of people who undertake most of the actions on behalf of the particular local authority concerned. That being so, it is inevitable that one would wish to see the highest standards of probity, openness, and security of the public interest by that body. The interests of the staff of the authority need also to be protected. If the executive were to behave in the least way in an improper fashion, that would not help the staff's good reputation.
	I believed it necessary, therefore, to table Amendment No. 87. I am pleased that government Amendment No. 151 is grouped with it. While that amendment does not cover the same points as Amendment No. 87, it is directed towards the same intentions. The subject is further confused. In order to find out what is to happen one has to refer to draft regulations. I emphasise that those are in draft form and not regulations. Therefore the issue is not straightforward.
	I am pleased to find--it occurs from time to time and is always a pleasure--that the principles which persuaded me to table the amendment are those which the Government accept and agree with. I hope that I may be permitted a slightly tart comment: that it would have been better if neither the Minister nor I had had to put forward an amendment on the subject. The provision could have been in the original Bill.
	I look forward to hearing the Minister's remarks on the government amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: I had expected the Minister to leap in to defend the Government's position by speaking to his amendment. He indicates that he gives way.
	Amendments Nos. 129 and 130 which stand in my name are grouped with Amendment No. 87. I suspect that the real debate needs to be on government Amendment No. 151, which stands more than a sporting chance of appearing in the final version of the Bill rather than the amendments in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. Therefore, I shall comment on that amendment first.
	We welcome a government amendment on access to meetings and provision of information. However, I confess that I would wish the Government's new clause to go somewhat further. Chapter 13 of the guidance on accountable decision making is passionate in its advocacy of transparency and accountability--and who could argue with that? It also comments that the traditional access to information provisions require material to be available only three days before the date of the relevant meeting. The draft guidance describes the desirability of wide consultation before decisions are made. Again, I do not quarrel with that. I am concerned, however, that in most cases it will be voluntary good practice rather than a statutory right for citizens or other members of the authority.
	I am particularly concerned about the provision in paragraph (a) of the proposed new clause which provides for there to be regulations about,
	"access of the public to meetings of executives or committees ... (including provision enabling such meetings to take place in private)".
	The obvious implication is that executives can choose to meet in private and that there will not be prior access to information but that decisions will be provided to be published as soon as practicable after the meeting. We see that language from the Government. There has been much talk about recognising that an executive will at times choose to meet in private. The truth is that one can never avoid off-the-record discussions between members of an executive or any group which chooses to talk privately beforehand. We on these Benches feel strongly that the Bill should go as far as possible in a direction other than that of enshrining private meetings as part of a formal process. Information must be made publicly available at a stage when an input can be made by members of the public, interest groups and other councillors.
	My noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood spoke at an earlier stage about the importance of councillors who are not part of the executive or administration making their contribution to the processes of local authority. She spoke powerfully--and may choose to do so again today--about the importance of information being made available to back benchers. Many of us have sought to avoid using that term because it seems a little pejorative although that is not the intention. Back benchers, in particular those of the party running the local authority, need their opportunity to make a constructive input. Today may not be the day to choose the term "a critical friend of the administration" but that is the role of many back benchers. That is how they like to view it. We welcome such a provision and hope to strengthen the Bill in order to contribute to the development of scrutiny, enhance the role of non-executive members, public participation and consultation and real freedom of information, and bring about the improved ethics and probity that we all seek.
	The two amendments in the group would strengthen the requirements on access to information and decision-making. The first would maintain current levels of openness by applying the 1972 Act. Although there would be no restriction on members of the executive holding discussions in private, the amendment recognises that formal decision-making should be in public. The second amendment provides for agendas and papers to be published in advance, and for there to be advance notice of decisions. I look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation of his amendment.

Lord Whitty: I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, if she thought that I would speak before her. I thought that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I heard debate on the other two amendments and therefore could place my amendment in context. I shall speak to that amendment and pick up some of the points raised.
	The Government's starting point is that to be transparent and accountable a council's decision-making arrangements need to satisfy a number of fundamental principles. The first is that a council's policy development must be inclusive and involve the key stakeholders, and so forth. Secondly, the community needs to be able to make its input into the decision making. Thirdly, and most importantly in this context, local people need to know who are the decision takers, what those decision takers plan to do, what they have done, and why they have done it. Amendment No. 151 meets those criteria.
	The right approach when judging whether decision-making arrangements are transparent and accountable is to look at how they meet those principles in practice. Although there has been some formality of openness in the past, it has not in all cases met the principles of transparency and accountability. Traditional arrangements do not meet them. Committee meetings are in public, but frequently that is not where decisions are made. Local people can be present but that does not mean they know who is the real decision taker.
	Under the present system, papers must be presented to a committee three days in advance, but that is no substitute for the proper involvement of local people. Minutes are made available after the meeting but there is no way of scrutinising them and getting behind the formal decisions. Access to papers and minutes rarely helps to identify the real issues.
	The present structure can embrace committees that do a good job of meeting transparency and accountability and go beyond the minimum in providing information to the public and interest groups. The new executive arrangements will provide the clarity, transparency and accountability that we all want and are set out in Chapter 13 of the draft guidance. They include an inclusive process of formulating the policy framework and budget; publicly known and identified individuals who are personally responsible for implementing the details of that framework and budget; accurate recording of decisions and reasons; timely publication of those reasons and of the background and factual papers available to decision makers; and the powerful overview and scrutiny committees--which will meet in public and discuss and make recommendations on policies, holding each executive member to account for that which he or she has done or is planning to do.
	Those arrangements will open the door to a wider form of democracy and a greater degree of information for the public. The executive will make clear from the outset what it plans to do, who on the executive will take particular decisions and how it is intended to involve others in those decisions. There will be dialogue between members of the executive and the relevant overview and scrutiny committees. The public and local people, through those committees, will have a guarantee of knowing the executive's plans, what it is doing, and what it has done and why.
	Amendment No. 151, together with the guidance, allows those arrangements to be implemented. Coupled with Clause 15 on the role of overview and scrutiny committees, the amendment should lead to proper transparency and accountability. The amendment, taken together with the draft guidance, meets those objectives but the three Opposition amendments would not. They are closer to replicating the access to information regime that applies to the current committee system, which misses the point. An executive is not the same as a small committee but comprises several people who, individually and personally, have responsibility for delivering aspects of the council's agreed policies.
	An executive will of course discuss many issues but final responsibility for a decision will often rest with an individual, particularly where there is a directly elected mayor but also in other models of executive structure. The individual will be responsible to the overview and scrutiny committees in terms of what was available before making a decision, why the decision was made and the decision itself. Such decisions may frequently be made in their final form by the executive in private but the background, responsibility and precise form of decisions will be subject to public scrutiny. Amendment No. 151 covers that objective in a way that the other amendments do not fully address.
	Although there is some overlap of what is desired by members of both Opposition Front Benches, their amendments address something more akin to the present situation than the new structure, so I hope that they will not press their amendments.

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: I agree with my noble friend that the new structures and the distinction between executive responsibility, scrutiny and overview are more radical than the Opposition amendments. My noble friend's approach offers a more substantial way forward.
	There is a need for a considerable degree of openness and transparency in decision-making and accountability. My noble friend's way forward is a new regulatory-making power to deal with access of information, rather than put those principles in the Bill. The Government may take the view that provisions requiring detailed amendments to existing legislation are best be dealt with by regulation. However, there is a case for ensuring that enhanced accountability is enshrined in the Bill, not left to regulations that could be changed or overturned in future, with a return to what some might regard as the bad old days of local government.
	The key principles of the new access to information regime should be in the Bill. Chapter 13 of the guidelines points the way, so I hope that my noble friend will consider the merits of my suggestion when he responds.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: The Minister said the other day that he was unabashed at the way that the Government are handling the Bill. That frees me to say one or two things that I would otherwise hate to say, as I would resile sharply from the slightest risk of saying something that would upset the Minister. However, as he declared himself totally unabashed, I presume that his feelings are well anaesthetised by now and that he has given up any nonsense about having regard for what is said in Parliament. I understand that he has that habit of mind from the Government of whom he is a member, who find it much easier to ride roughshod over Parliament than pay undue regard to the foolish assembly that Parliament is in their eyes.
	There are 51 pages of amendments--almost all of them government amendments--to a 51-page Bill. It is quite a feat to have rewritten the Bill to that extent. The Minister ought to have at least a teaspoonful of gall before he gets away with that. I should like to ask a question. Why was this amendment not part of the original Bill? It could have been thought of before. Furthermore, when the noble Lord says that it will introduce a wider degree of democracy, I pause and wonder how he can make such comments when this seems to me to be a most undemocratic procedure. As I read the whole of Amendment No. 151, it states that the Secretary of State will have power to make regulations. Those regulations will not be effectively reviewed by Parliament and it is a nonsense to pretend that they will be.
	Perhaps I may make one further point. Subsection (1)(e) of the new clause to be inserted by Amendment No. 151 states that:
	"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision--...
	(e) for or in connection with the creation of offences in respect of any rights or requirements created or imposed by the regulations".
	I do not think that the Government should make light of creating offences. When the Minister replies to the debate, will he tell the Committee what kind of offences, committed by whom, the Government have in mind in this particular provision?

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: One reason why I feel that Amendment No. 129 is especially important returns to the point of why we are here today to consider this new Local Government Bill; namely, because both the Government and most Members of the Committee wish to tie the interests of the public more closely to what takes place in local government. However, without Amendment No. 129, it is hard to imagine that in the future the public will feel any more interested in local government than they do now, before this Bill is passed.
	While it is all very well to say that, after the event the scrutiny and policy committees will be open to the public and the press, what both the public and the press--who form the main connection between the council and the public--are mainly interested in are the big decisions and all the attendant background papers and proceedings that surround those decisions. That enables the press and the public to understand how such decisions are made. Anything that disconnects the public and the press from the very heart of the decision-making process, which, as we have often been told, will be based in the executive, will weaken one of the fundamental intentions behind this legislation. The Government have stated that they want to see local government become more open to the public and to encourage the public to become more interested in the workings of local government.

Baroness Hamwee: The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer of Leeds, made an important point. We are dealing here with x, y or z district council, county council or perhaps unitary authority, not with "South Wessex plc". This is not the equivalent of a corporate board making decisions in quite the way that I believe the Government would like to happen. We risk losing an important element of democracy and direct accountability here, which counts for more than the accountability of a company as between its directors and its shareholders.
	Will the Minister tell the Committee whether I am right in thinking that, with the provisions the Government are proposing, a member of the public will have no right to be informed of the background or of any other matters to be taken into account in any major decision to be taken by the executive unless statutory provision has been made for consultation on that particular item?

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: First, I should like to add my support to the comments made by my noble friend. A county council often needs to take planning decisions which may involve a wide range of issues and the extensive granting of permissions. In the past--I suspect that this will be so in the future also--there has been suspicion over exactly how such decisions were taken because of the size of the private interests with which the council was dealing. It is extremely important that there is no opportunity for anyone to be able to say, "Oh, they took that decision in secret. We do not really know what took place while that decision was taken", on, for example, the granting of a licence for waste disposal.
	Secondly, I am worried that even the members of an authority may not understand the implications of such a decision and how that decision came about. At this point perhaps I may ask the Minister to confirm something for me. I am ashamed to say that I have now lost touch with whether, under this new legislation, members will retain their right to attend every meeting of a local authority.

Lord Whitty: I regret the confusion because I thought that the Committee would hear one more intervention.
	First, I should like to confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that the point on which I was unabashed was that, having taken into account the views of local government and the Joint Committee and having examined in more detail how these arrangements will work, the Government were prepared to bring forward a significant number of amendments. I have pointed out that that is not particularly unusual at an early stage in the progress of a Bill. However, in light of the new procedures for scrutiny and consultation, a number of amendments are likely to emerge as a result of that pre-legislative period. I am unabashed about that.
	However, that is not to say that in the course of our debates on these and other amendments I may feel that perhaps we need to change our minds if a good case is made by a Member of the Committee. For that reason, I do not think that the noble Lord is correct to say that this is an example of the Government disparaging the role of Parliament in either House. It is most certainly not my wish or intention to do any such thing. I trust that the manner in which I conduct the proceedings on this Bill in the Chamber, and other Bills, indicates that the Government take note of all concerns raised.
	As regards the specific point made by the noble Lord on new Clause 151(1)(e), this has been partly touched on in the draft regulations. Those draft regulations are available to Members of the Committee as the first House to consider the Bill; they are probably available earlier than many local government legislative initiatives have been. The offences referred to would be offences which an executive would commit if it failed to make a record of a decision or if the relevant officer failed to publish that decision and the reasons for it along with the relevant factual evidence and background. That must be done in line with the guidance that will be provided. It will ensure that the public have better access to the reasons why decisions are made. To that extent, I believe this provision is an enhancement rather than a reduction of democracy.
	We are bringing in measures that will require all the relevant information to be made available, along with a basic and fundamental structure that will enable scrutiny committees to interrogate and comment on the decisions of the executive in a way that the present confused situation does not. Currently, back-bench members of executive committees do not have such rights because they are party to the decisions.
	Therefore, the issue of where responsibility lies is given greater clarity. I had believed that Amendment No. 151 made clear that it is intended to provide that degree of clarity. However, I recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Woolmer both raised the question of whether we could identify more clearly where the responsibility lies, perhaps bringing in guidance on the face of the Bill. Although I may be reluctant to go too far down that road, I understand the basic point in terms of identification of accountability. I accept that we should look at the issue again in that light and, having considered those points, I hope that I shall not offend noble Lords if we bring forward a relatively straightforward amendment which I hope will meet the main concerns.
	With regard to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and others on her Benches, it seems to me that if we make available in the guidance and under the aegis of this new clause all the background material to the press and to the public, we shall enhance the quality of debate and therefore, it is hoped, the degree of seriousness with which the public in general regard local government.
	We must also avoid the presumption that at present the press is able to find out the background material on decisions under the present committee structure of local councils. That is far from the truth. We all know that in practice decisions are made in the vital exchange of information and that the balance of argument is faced up to in areas which are not open to the public and certainly not open to the press. That would make meetings slightly more open and significantly more detailed, while at the same time retaining the right of the executive to organise its own affairs in the way it deems most appropriate. One will know who makes a decision, which individual is responsible and what meeting of the executive was responsible at that level.
	Therefore, I believe that some of the fears expressed that the new structure of meetings will reduce the openness and availability of information, as compared to the present situation, are seriously misplaced. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, for example, referred to planning decisions. Planning committees will not be affected in the same way as other decisions under this arrangement. It is certainly true that in cases of final executive decision, that decision will not be available before the formal decision and the immediate background papers are made available. However, those decisions do not come out of the ether. They will already have been subject to considerable discussion in the community and in the council. Subsequently they will be subject, and in many cases prospectively subject, to the role of the overview and scrutiny committees in probing that information.
	Therefore, I believe that we shall have a more robust system of openness and accountability than we have now and that the anxieties that have been expressed are misplaced. I hope that the House will recognise the Government's intentions, if no more, in putting forward the amendments in this form and providing as background the guidance which will be triggered by the amendment.

Baroness Hanham: I am amazed at the type of "patsy" council which the Minister brings to mind when he talks about how councils apparently behaved in the past. It is not a structure or way of behaviour that I recognise councils as having been guilty of in general; that is, not providing material or having it published.
	My reason for rising is to press a little further on proposed paragraph (1)(e) in Amendment No. 151. As I understand the Minister's response, offences will be created. Offences are criminal matters. Is it right for the noble Lord to create a criminal offence if matters are not put into the public arena? Secondly, it has always been the case that councillors who are advised properly and who have taken proper advice from their officers are considered to have behaved properly and in light of the law. I wonder whether that is to change under the new system.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I must apologise. I misused the word "planning". I was responding to the debate and thinking on my feet rather than reading from a prepared intervention. I was trying to find a word for the major and expensive decisions which unitary authorities and county councils in particular have to make. With the greatest respect to the Minister, I do not believe that he responded to my point on the suspicion that arises when those major, expensive decisions--the implementation of a budget in large chunks involving deals particularly with the private sector--which are perfectly legitimate and right under the rules which govern behaviour of local authorities today, are taken in private. There is already enough suspicion about what goes on behind closed doors without adding to it. That is the point that I was trying to make.

Lord Smith of Leigh: I remind the Committee that I have an interest in terms of being a local councillor. I know that many noble Lords who have spoken in the debate also share that interest--at least in the past if not at present. In view of what has been said in this debate, I have some difficulty in recognising the local government that I experienced. I believe that we must recognise the form, substance and reality of what goes on in formal committees, where decisions are often made outside. How many times have committees made decisions on the basis of debating issues and finding solutions? More than likely, they accept recommendations.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, commented on the present regulations. They have not generated the interest in local government decisions which we are trying to address in this Bill. The fact that access to information exists in its present form has not created a climate in which people show an interest in local government.
	However, although we are creating new structures, in a sense the formal requirements of a public authority remain the same. Decisions are bound to be made in private if there are commercial sensitivities, particularly when dealing with more than one private contractor. Beyond that, accountability is achieved partly through access to information, perhaps in the press, and partly through the scrutiny processes of the council. As the Minister said, this is greatly enhanced by the Bill and, in addition, there are the normal safeguards which exist at the moment; namely, the monitoring officer and the audit arrangements. Those will still be in place to make sure that decisions are made in a proper manner.
	I believe that all of us who have been involved in political activity where decision-making has taken place know that a certain amount will take place in private. Some matters involve certain sensitivities--sometimes commercial, sometimes in relation to individuals and staffing responsibilities, but often political. Those decisions will begin to be made privately, however formally the decisions need to be recorded. I believe that the Government have recognised the reality of that situation and have included provisions in the Bill to make it more accountable, more open than it is at present, and to provide the opportunity for greater scrutiny through the overview and scrutiny committees which can look at the way that decisions are made.
	I believe that it is right that executive decisions should be made public. Normally, I believe that reasons should be given if executives want to meet in private, but we should recognise that those decisions are bound to arise. I believe that the changes in the nature of local government envisaged in the Bill require a change in the way we access information and the way that information is presented to the public. I believe that the Government have brought that about in Amendment No. 151.

Lord Whitty: I apologise for intervening once more. I believe that my noble friend Lord Smith placed this issue in the broader context of the effects of the change, compared to the present situation. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, I was not necessarily criticising the current practice of many local authorities. However, the point is that the system does not in any sense guarantee availability or accountability of either information or clarity of responsibility under the present system. That system is intended to ensure that there is greater clarity and tighter minimum requirements on the provision of information. I believe that it achieves that.
	As regards offences, under the present system offences already exist in relation to denying access to information and flouting the information regime which is required under existing local government legislation. This provision merely transposes that into the new regime. Some of that is spelled out--for example, the role of the monitoring office--in the guidance. So we are not creating a precedent. It has been the case for some time.
	Perhaps I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, that I recognise that major decisions will be taken on which one would expect there to be some public engagement. Those decisions should require the availability of some public information prior to the final decision being made. In terms of the major decisions to which she referred, that will inevitably the case. It will be the case also that the major role of the scrutiny and overview committee will be ongoing to assess the run-up to the executive reaching such major decisions. Therefore, it will not merely be a post facto look at how the executive has arrived at its decisions or an inquest into previous decisions. There will be ongoing assessment and monitoring of the way in which the executive is doing its job.
	That is quite a novel concept in relation to local government. It is relatively new in relation to Westminster. But it is not unknown in constitutional arrangements elsewhere around the world and I believe that it is a major step forward for local government.
	The issues relating to the budget or any alterations to it will be made in full council in any event. Therefore, we are not talking about the creation of new funds or new streams of funds, although, as my noble friend Lord Smith said, there will be occasions when the decisions on how those funds are dealt with, particularly in relation to public/private partnerships, must be reached in private and then explained because of commercial confidentiality or personal involvement.
	Therefore, I reiterate that to an extent this regime builds on the best of the old system but it does that in a way which recognises the new structure. It provides greater and often earlier access to information. It provides also greater power both to the overview and scrutiny committees than accrues at present to back-bench councillors and to the press and the public as a whole. Therefore, through those measures I believe that we are enhancing democracy and accountability.

Lord Dixon-Smith: It was perhaps inevitable that this group of amendments would provoke debate because if a council elects to change to executive arrangements, that is a radical change in the way in which business has traditionally been carried out by local government in this country. It is right that the consequences of that should be looked at in some detail. I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have contributed to the debate. It seems superfluous to pick up all the points which have been raised when the Minister, with his usual ability, has summed up what has been said by so many who contributed.
	But we should just remember that the motivation behind the Bill is greater efficiency rather than greater democracy. The question then is how the need for democracy and greater transparency is welded on to that. That was the point at which the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, was driving. That is what is in the back of the minds of everybody who has spoken in this debate.
	The idea that local communities are intensely and passionately involved in the minutiae of many of the matters with which local authorities must deal so that they discuss them over supper when both husband and wife are at home--at least, if it is a traditional household and one must be careful how one says these things--is unreal. Equally unreal is the idea that we shall see policy development in public. If you do not have some idea of what your policy is and what the consequences of what you are saying will be before you start saying it in public, you are a very unwise politician indeed. I do not believe that the Minister has ever suffered from that failure, at least not since I have known him. We need to be aware of those realities.
	We all need to study what the Minister has said. He has said that he will look at the question of information availability to the public. I am grateful to him for that. But we may well need to return to points of detail on this matter at a later stage in the Bill. But for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 12 [Responsibility for executive functions in case of s. 10(2) executive]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 88:
	Page 6, leave out lines 23 to 30 and insert--
	("(1) Subject to any provision made under section (Discharge of functions by area committees), (Discharge of functions of and by another local authority) or (Joint exercise of functions), any functions which, under executive arrangements, are the responsibility of a mayor and cabinet executive are to be discharged in accordance with this section.
	(2) The elected mayor--
	(a) may discharge any of those functions, or
	(b) may arrange for the discharge of any of those functions--").

Lord Whitty: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to the large number of other amendments which appear within this group. I assure the Committee that in this case most of the amendments are consequential on the main point.
	The amendments deal with the ways in which executive functions can be delegated, both within the executive and to officers. They amend Clauses 12 to 14 and introduce a new clause after Clause 14. To inform the debate, we have published a consultative draft of guidance, chapters 7 to 10 of which deal with those issues in detail. The amendments are necessary to tidy up Clauses 12 to 14 dealing with executive functions.
	Amendments Nos. 88, 89 and 91 to 99 amend Clause 12, which deals with the way in which a mayor and cabinet form of executive may delegate functions. Amendment No. 88 is consequential on the new clauses on area committees, joint committees and delegation to authorities.
	Amendments Nos. 89 and 91 to 99 are minor and consequential drafting amendments.
	Amendments Nos. 100, 101, and 103 to 116 amend Clause 13 which deals with ways in which the leader and cabinet form of executive may delegate functions. Subsection (1) in Amendment No. 100 is consequential on the new clauses on area committees, joint committees and delegation to another authority, which we shall debate shortly, and is necessary to enable delegation of executive functions in that way. I am wrong to say that we shall debate those matters shortly. They were dealt with at the end of our proceedings last Tuesday.
	The rest of Amendment No. 100 clarifies the provisions which were previously in subsections (2) to (4) of Clause 13. The new subsections (2) and (3) enable the council to specify in the executive arrangements the scheme for delegation of executive functions.
	The new subsection (4) enables the executive leader to determine such delegations where they are not specified in the executive arrangements. Those may be described as--although I do not particularly like the description--the so-called "weak" and "strong" leader arrangements, although it is possible for there to be executive arrangements where some of the functions are allocated by the authority and others by the leader.
	Amendment No. 112 allows the leader, where he determines the delegations, to prevent any person or body to whom he has delegated a function from further delegating that function. That is similar to the provisions in Clause 12 relating to the mayor and delegation.
	The next group contains further consequential amendments which deal with mayoral form. Amendments Nos. 117, 119 and 120 amend Clause 14, which deals with ways in which the mayor and council manager form of executive may delegate functions. These minor and consequential drafting amendments arise from the new clauses on area committees.
	Amendment No. 121 introduces a new clause to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations on how functions can be delegated in any new form of executive defined in regulations under Clause 10(5). This new enabling power has been included to reduce the need to rely on the powers in the Bill to make incidental, consequential, transitional and supplemental provisions if further forms of executive are defined using the power in Clause 10.
	I hope that the amendments will be uncontroversial and spell out the implications for the various forms of executive functional amendments previously carried. I beg to move.

Lord Dixon-Smith: Amendments Nos. 90, 102 and 118 tabled in my name are all directed to the same purpose; that is, to make it possible for an authority using executive arrangements none the less still to work through area committees. I am happy to say that that will now be the situation so I need say no more upon it except that this is yet another group of amendments that it would have been nice not to have tabled. With that, there is nothing more to say.

Baroness Hamwee: I should like to ask an entirely straight question concerning Amendment No. 117. Can the Minister confirm that my reading of the amendment, or at any rate the clause as it will be amended, is correct; namely, that where the executive arrangement is elected mayor plus council manager, the council manager but not the mayor will be in a position to discharge functions? I understand that from reading the end of the amendment together with the rest of the clause. To put it another way, I refer to the position of the elected mayor in that form of executive arrangement. I shall be glad to have clarification.

Lord Smith of Leigh: I agree with my noble friend the Minister as regards the unsatisfactory terminology used in Chapter 9 of the draft regulations; that is, "strong" and "weak leader". Perhaps I may suggest "autocratic" and "democratic" as alternatives.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: As the Minister stated, last week we debated very late in the evening the area committee function and joint working relations. However, I must raise concerns to put them on the record regarding this model of working. I refer to the fact that in the guidance, as currently written, there is the still the problem that area committees are not permitted to discharge the overview and scrutiny function unless they are politically balanced. As I pointed out last time, if an area committee has been elected by the population of that area, it is not therefore in the gift of the council as to whether or not it is politically balanced. It is therefore impossible for the area committee to fulfil that requirement.
	This is obviously a detailed issue, and one which the Minister was unable to answer last week. However, I hope he will be able to address it in a satisfactory way so that, should the mayor or council manager choose to delegate the scrutiny function to the area committee, an impossible demand is not made in the guidance that area committees cannot fulfil that function because they are not politically balanced.

Lord Whitty: In response to my noble friend Lord Smith perhaps I may say that I hesitate to find a better form of words than those used in the guidance. However, I should put on record that the alternative terminology he proposed perhaps gives the wrong impression of at least one form of structure which we propose.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised a question on Amendment No. 117 concerning the respective roles of the council manager and the mayor. The noble Baroness is correct in her interpretation. If she requires further detail, I shall no doubt be able to provide it in writing.
	In response to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, we have partially debated that issue and I am in the process of writing to her. The position is that the overview and scrutiny committees at their council level can have a valuable role in helping councillors to represent their constituents. The area committees can advise such overview and scrutiny committees. I recall attempting to explain this issue previously. It is not that individual area committees would have to be politically balanced different from that which we had been left with by the electorate, but that the overall scrutiny function would have to be politically balanced.
	It would probably be better for the noble Baroness to await my letter on this subject. However, there is a distinction. There is no intention to override the political judgment of those covered by the area committees. This concerns the role they can then fulfil. I hope that that clarifies the position.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 89:
	Page 6, line 32, leave out ("single").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 91 to 99:
	Page 6, line 35, leave out ("executive").
	Page 6, line 41, leave out ("executive").
	Page 6, line 42, leave out ("single").
	Page 6, line 43, leave out ("the single") and insert ("that").
	Page 7, line 1, leave out ("executive").
	Page 7, line 6, leave out ("single").
	Page 7, line 6, leave out second ("executive").
	Page 7, line 7, leave out ("single").
	Page 7, line 8, leave out ("single").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 13 [Responsibility for executive functions in case of s. 10(3) executive]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment Nos. 100 and 101:
	Page 7, leave out lines 10 to 19 and insert--
	(".--(1) Subject to any provision made under section (Discharge of functions by area committees), (Discharge of functions of and by another local authority) or (Joint exercise of functions), any functions which, under executive arrangements, are the responsibility of a leader and cabinet executive are to be discharged in accordance with this section.
	(2) The executive arrangements may make provision with respect to the allocation of any functions which are the responsibility of the executive among the following persons--
	(a) the executive,
	(b) any members of the executive,
	(c) any committees of the executive, and
	(d) any officers of the authority.
	(3) If the executive arrangements make such provision as is mentioned in subsection (2), any person to whom a function is allocated in accordance with that provision may discharge the function.
	(4) If or to the extent that the functions which are the responsibility of the executive are not allocated in accordance with such provision as is mentioned in subsection (2), the executive leader--
	(a) may discharge any of those functions, or
	(b) may arrange for the discharge of any of those functions--").
	Page 7, line 21, leave out ("single").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 102 not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 103 to 116:
	Page 7, line 24, leave out subsection (4).
	Page 7, line 30, leave out ("executive").
	Page 7, line 30, leave out (", or are required to be,").
	Page 7, line 35, leave out ("executive").
	Page 7, line 35, leave out (", or are required to be,").
	Page 7, line 36, leave out ("single").
	Page 7, line 37, leave out ("the single") and insert ("that").
	Page 7, line 39, leave out ("executive").
	Page 7, line 39, leave out (", or are required to be,").
	Page 7, line 42, at end insert--
	("( ) Where the executive leader makes any arrangements under subsection (4)(b)(i), (ii) or (iii), he may direct, at that or any subsequent time, that subsection (5), (6) or (7) (as the case may be) is not to apply to any of the functions which are the subject of those arrangements or is not to apply to any of those functions in such cases or circumstances as he may direct.").
	Page 7, line 44, leave out ("single").
	Page 7, line 45, leave out ("single").
	Page 8, line 1, leave out ("single").
	Page 8, line 3, leave out subsection (9) and insert--
	("( ) The reference in subsection (2)(b) to the members of the executive includes a reference to the executive leader, and subsection (6) in its application for the purposes of subsection (2)(b) is to be construed accordingly.").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 14 [Responsibility for executive functions in case of s. 10(4) executive]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 117:
	Page 8, leave out lines 5 to 12 and insert--
	("(1) Subject to any provision made under section (Discharge of functions by area committees), (Discharge of functions of and by another local authority) or (Joint exercise of functions), the functions which, under executive arrangements, are the responsibility of a mayor and council manager executive are to be discharged in accordance with this section.
	(2) The executive--
	(a) may discharge any of those functions, or
	(b) may arrange for the discharge of any of those functions--").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 118 not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 119 and 120:
	Page 8, line 15, leave out ("executive").
	Page 8, line 20, leave out ("executive").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 121:
	After Clause 14, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS: S. 10(5) EXECUTIVE
	(".--(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision with respect to the ways in which any functions which, under executive arrangements, are the responsibility of an executive which takes a form prescribed in regulations under section 10(5) are to be discharged.
	(2) The provision which may be made by regulations under this section includes provision which applies or reproduces (with or without modifications) any provisions of section 12, 13 or 14.
	(3) Nothing in subsection (2) affects the generality of the power under subsection (1).
	(4) Any provision made by regulations under this section is subject to any provision made under section (Discharge of functions by area committees), (Discharge of functions of and by another local authority) or (Joint exercise of functions).").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 122:
	After Clause 14, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS BY AREA COMMITTEES
	(".--(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for or in connection with enabling an executive of a local authority, or a committee or specified member of such an executive, to arrange for the discharge of any functions which, under executive arrangements, are the responsibility of the executive by an area committee of that authority.
	(2) Regulations under this section may impose limitations or restrictions on the arrangements which may be made by virtue of the regulations (including limitations or restrictions on the functions which may be the subject of such arrangements).
	(3) In this section--
	"area committee", in relation to a local authority, means a committee of the authority which has functions in respect of part of the area of the authority and which satisfies such other conditions as may be specified,
	"specified" means specified in regulations under this section.").

Lord Whitty: I beg to move.

[Amendments Nos. 123 and 124, as amendments to Amendment No. 122, not moved.]
	On Question, Amendment No. 122 agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 125:
	After Clause 14, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS OF AND BY ANOTHER LOCAL AUTHORITY
	(".--(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for or in connection with enabling an executive of a local authority (within the meaning of this Part), or a committee or specified member of such an executive, to arrange for the discharge of any functions which, under executive arrangements, are the responsibility of the executive--
	(a) by another local authority (within the meaning of section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972), or
	(b) by an executive of another local authority (within the meaning of this Part) or a committee or specified member of such an executive.
	(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for or in connection with enabling a local authority (within the meaning of section 101 of that Act) to arrange for the discharge of any of their functions by an executive of another local authority (within the meaning of this Part) or a committee or specified member of such an executive.
	(3) The reference in subsection (2) to the functions of a local authority, in a case where the authority is operating executive arrangements, is a reference to the functions which, under those arrangements, are not the responsibility of the authority's executive.
	(4) Regulations under subsection (1) or (2) may include provision--
	(a) requiring, in the case of arrangements for the discharge of any functions by an executive of a local authority or a committee or member of such an executive, the approval of the authority to such arrangements,
	(b) which, in the case of arrangements for the discharge of any functions by a local authority, enables any of those functions to be delegated,
	(c) which, in the case of arrangements for the discharge of any functions by an executive of a local authority or a committee or member of such an executive, enables any of those functions to be delegated.
	(5) The provision which may be made under subsection (4)(b) includes provision which applies or reproduces (with or without modifications) any provisions of section 101(2) to (4) of the Local Government Act 1972.
	(6) The provision which may be made under subsection (4)(c) includes provision which applies or reproduces (with or without modifications) any provisions of section 12(3) to (6), 13(5) to (9) or 14(3) and (4).
	(7) Nothing in subsection (4), (5) or (6) affects the generality of the power under subsection (1) or (2).
	(8) In this section "specified" means specified in regulations under this section.").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 126:
	After Clause 14, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:JOINT EXERCISE OF FUNCTIONS
	(".--(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for or in connection with permitting arrangements under section 101(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 where any of the functions which are the subject of the arrangements are the responsibility of an executive of a local authority under executive arrangements.
	(2) The provision which may be made under subsection (1) includes provision--
	(a) as to the circumstances in which the executive, or a committee or specified member of the executive, is to be a party to the arrangements in place of the authority,
	(b) as to the circumstances in which--
	(i) the authority, and
	(ii) the executive or a committee or specified member of the executive,
	are both to be parties to the arrangements,
	(c) as to the circumstances in which any functions of the local authority under section 102(1)(b), (2) or (3) of the Local Government Act 1972, so far as they relate to any joint committee falling within section 101(5)(a) of that Act, are instead to be exercised by the executive or a committee or specified member of the executive,
	(d) as to the circumstances in which any functions of the local authority under section 102(1)(b), (2) or (3) of that Act, so far as they relate to any such joint committee, are to be exercised by the authority,
	(e) as to the circumstances in which appointments to any such joint committee by the executive, or a committee or specified member of the executive, need not be made in accordance with the political balance requirements,
	(f) as to the persons (including officers of the authority) who may be appointed to any such joint committee by the executive or a specified member of the executive.
	(3) Nothing in subsection (2) affects the generality of the power under subsection (1).
	(4) In this section "specified" means specified in regulations under this section.").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 127 to 130 not moved.]
	Clause 15 [Overview and scrutiny committees]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 131:
	Page 8, line 24, after ("appointment") insert ("by the authority").

Lord Whitty: In moving Amendment No. 131, I shall speak also to the other government amendments in this group. All of these amendments deal with the issue of overview and scrutiny committees.
	We tabled this series of amendments to reinforce what we see as the crucial role of the committees. Under the new arrangements the executive will make the majority of day-to-day decisions. As I said, that decision-making process must meet our aims of being more efficient, transparent and accountable. We therefore need to ensure that, unlike the existing system, it is opened up to clear and proper scrutiny and that councillors outside the executive, and other stakeholders, are given a strong role in policy development alongside the executive. These amendments to enhance the position of the overview and scrutiny committees are designed to do just that.
	Amendments Nos. 133 to 135 clarify the remit of overview and scrutiny committees. They make it clear that every function which is the responsibility of the executive must be capable of being reviewed and scrutinised by at least one committee. They also make it clear that they can examine not only decisions, but also all actions taken by the executive in connection with the discharge of its functions. That delivers our policy of ensuring that all executive actions are open to challenge and public accountability and meet some of the anxieties expressed in the earlier debate.
	Amendments Nos. 137 and 138 further clarify the power of overview and scrutiny committees in respect of their key roles in policy development and review of all council functions. They are an expansion of Clauses 15(1)(a) and (b)(i) in the Bill.
	Amendment No. 140 ensures that an overview and scrutiny committee, where it wishes to challenge an executive decision, has the power to have the decision reconsidered before implementation. Exactly how such a "call-in" mechanism might work in an individual authority will be largely a matter for local choice. But we wish to ensure that such a power exists. The amendment would allow the committee to ask the relevant part of the executive to reconsider the matter, or to refer the matter to full council for debate to see whether it thinks the matter needs consideration. The power is proposed as a direct response to the Joint Committee's recommendations.
	Amendment No. 140 also ensures that an overview and scrutiny committee cannot discharge any other function on behalf of the council. That is to ensure a proper division between the discharge of executive duties and discharge of scrutiny duties. The committees are there to look at how council functions are being discharged. Such an arrangement would be blurred if it was itself carrying out some of those functions.
	Amendment No. 145 deals with people who are not members of the authority being co-opted on to overview and scrutiny committees. It also deals, in new subsection (2D), with the rules which govern the way in which such committees operate. For such committees to be effective, it is important that they involve representatives of the local community as appropriate. The amendment would allow them to co-opt non-councillors. However, it also makes it clear that, with one important exception, those co-opted members will not be able to vote on such committees. That is in line with the general existing rules.
	The important exception relates to church and parent-governor representatives. They will have the right to be co-opted on to overview and scrutiny committees which deal with education matters. That is dealt with in part by the amendment of the right reverend Prelate. At present such representatives sit on education committees by virtue of the provisions of the Education Act 1996. The Government recognise the valuable role that they have played in education and want to see those contributions continue. The amendment therefore enshrines on the face of this Bill their rights to scrutinise and review education matters.
	Subsection (2D) applies also to overview and scrutiny committees and sub-committees the access to information regime that currently applies to the committee system. It also ensures that such committees reflect the overall political balance of the council. Ensuring that all parties on the council are represented in proportion on each committee will make overview and scrutiny suitably non-partisan and, as far as possible, non-adversarial.
	I hope that the Committee will recognise that the amendments are designed to achieve exactly the objective referred to in the earlier debate of effective scrutiny of executive decisions of the council under the new structures. I beg to move.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I can ask the Minister a short question for clarification. Do the responsibilities for executive functions under Clause 12 in any way govern or relate to the exercise of the powers of a local authority under Clause 2(1)(b)? The Minister will remember that we had a discussion on this in two contexts on two amendments earlier. It may be that I am ignorant, which I am, of the interstice of local government administration, but I merely seek clarification.

Baroness Hamwee: This is a difficult group of amendments to handle. A number of different points are raised by a number of the amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, indicated that he will be happy for me to speak next, perhaps because my Amendment No. 140A is an amendment to the Minster's amendment to which he has already spoken.
	The noble Lord pre-empted the point by explaining lines 9 and 10 by saying that, if the overview and scrutiny committees were to extend their roles beyond the functions set out on the face of the Bill, there would be a blurring of the position. Our objection to the proposed new subsection is that, to provide that the functions of an overview and scrutiny committee may be only those which Parliament--for which read "the Government"--decides that it may have, seems to us to be yet another inappropriate constraint on the proper flexibility of local government. It is yet another centralising provision.
	Amendment No. 140A would provide that an overview and scrutiny committee could discharge functions imposed or permitted by the authority itself. That would not detract from its principal functions as set out in the clause and the clause as amended. We feel--I have no doubt it will be a theme which runs through the rest of today's debate--that the Government are losing valuable opportunities for the input of those people who will be members of the overview and scrutiny committees in such a rigid demarcation.
	I want to comment on Amendment No. 146. However, it may be that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, should speak to it first. Perhaps I may come back into the debate later if I feel that there are still points I should like to make.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I tabled four amendments in this group, each important in its way.
	Amendment No. 139 would permit an overview and scrutiny committee,
	"to advise the executive [of a local authority] on the future discharge of its executive functions".
	It is difficult to make a clear distinction between policy, executive and overview. A real problem exists in this regard and the Government, in trying to make clear distinctions, are in danger of creating a system where smooth operation will not happen.
	There is also the problem that members of the authority who are not serving on the executive must have a real job to do. It is perfectly true that some functions will not be handled by the executive; those will still remain for ordinary members.
	Then there are the overview and scrutiny committees, of which there may be one or more and in respect of which we have tabled further amendments. There will also be a standards committee. So there are other matters to be considered. However, the question is whether those committees will attract people of ability and vision. If one wishes to serve one's community, a considerable amount of trouble and inconvenience is involved in standing for election, even though it may only be for a local authority.
	Unless it is felt that there is a worthwhile job to do at the end of the day, good people will not stand for election. It is a very sad fact that, in general, politics today attracts few people of real ability because they can do so much better in the outside world. Indeed, for youngish people, family interests and the interests of one's children inevitably come before what we would regard as the obvious and wider interests of the community at large. That is a sad fact of life. So we must also bear that thought in mind.
	Amendment No. 146 requires officers serving the oversight and scrutiny committees to be responsible to the council, and states that they should clearly be seen not to serve the executive. I believe that that distinction will prove to be very important for the integrity of the whole new system. However, it is not straightforward and easy. In the case of some of the very small rural authorities, I suspect that staff numbers of qualified people, especially in the chief executive's department--I am sorry; I have to be careful how I use that word now--will in fact be small. We may well find difficulties in building Chinese walls of the sort that I think everyone agrees are desirable.
	Amendment No. 148 would make it possible for the head of the paid service or the monitoring officer to summon a meeting of an oversight and scrutiny committee, whenever he felt that it was necessary. The Minister talked about the need for openness, clarity and clear responsibility. For this system to be open, clear and transparent, I believe that that particular facility should be available.
	Amendment No. 149 deals with the matter of education and refers in particular to members in a "non-voting capacity" in relation to religion. I thought it worth tabling the amendment in what I would call a "non-traditional" form by inviting consideration that there should be at least one person representing each of the main religious faiths within the area. In the past, some religious faiths have not been involved in education committees. However, there are communities that are not well served in this respect. I commend Amendment No. 149 as producing a thought that I hope the Minister will consider with some sympathy.
	All of these amendments are, in their own right, somewhat serious amendments. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: I shall speak to Amendments No. 150 and 152, which are tabled in my name. I must apologise to Members of the Committee because when the discussion on this group of amendments began I was still sitting in a taxi-cab in Trafalgar Square, getting ever more anxious that I should not be here before the end of the debate.
	I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, his fellow Ministers and officials at the department for listening to the concerns expressed on behalf of the Churches, both in this Chamber and elsewhere. As long ago as November 1998, my predecessor as chair of the Church of England Board of Education, the then Bishop of Ripon, wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister to express the concern of the Churches about the loss of their voice and vote on local government committees dealing with education. The assurances then given by the Deputy Prime Minister and repeated in this Chamber and elsewhere by his fellow Ministers, as well as in the draft Bill and White Paper, were not given full effect when this Bill was first considered in your Lordships' House. I have therefore tabled the two amendments.
	The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford spoke on Second Reading. My amendments would not have quite the same effect of making up what the Churches and parent-governor representatives lose by the abolition of education committees, but I believe that they go as far as can reasonably be expected in the present climate.
	I now turn to the detail of my proposed amendments. I shall deal, first, with Amendment No. 152 because that is the more substantial of the two. Subsection (2) of the proposed new clause would have the effect of requiring a local authority with responsibility for education to establish one overview and scrutiny committee solely to oversee and scrutinise the work of education. I believe that there is great concern that this should be so; indeed, if I may say so, it is wider than the Churches' interest.
	Education is the largest and, arguably, the most significant aspect of any local authority's work when it has that responsibility. This is not just a result of the high profile given to education under the present Government; it arises largely because of its cost. Half of a county council's expenditure is usually spent on education and related services. But the local education authority and its elected councillors do not bear their responsibilities for this service alone. There are significant partnerships within which they work in the field of education. The Churches are major players here, providing one in three schools across the country. Indeed, it is claimed that 50 per cent of primary school children in Lancashire attend an Anglican, Roman Catholic or Methodist-sponsored school.
	In our view this partnership is of vital importance to the future of education in each local authority. The amendment means that the Church and parent-governor representatives would be members of a committee, with suitably defined responsibility, in which their voice and vote would take effect. The department's draft guidance, giving effect to the Bill when enacted, suggests that any local authority would wish to have more than one overview and scrutiny committee. That may be so, but my amendment would put that guidance, as it affects education, on to the face of the Bill.
	Subsection (3) of the proposed new clause relates to the power of the overview and scrutiny committee. If it has no teeth--I believe that this is the point the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, was making--it cannot bite. So my amendment is designed to give it teeth; in other words, to give it effect. Under the new arrangements, back-bench councillors might be glad of a few teeth themselves. So would the Church and parent-governor representatives, although I am not terribly pleased with the analogy that I have just used. They would be able to prevent the local authority executive implementing a decision that the committee had questioned without it going to a meeting of a full council and that council giving its approval. I hope that this delaying power over the executive will appeal to Members of the Committee.
	Amendment No. 150, which proposes to insert an extra subsection in Clause 15, is also concerned with giving the committee some power. For that reason I refer to it now. There was a clear intention in the White Paper attached to the draft Bill to give any member of any overview and scrutiny committee the power to require an item within the range of the committee's responsibility to be included on an agenda. I do not believe that this amendment is in any way controversial. I hope that the Government will see it as being entirely helpful to their intentions.
	Perhaps I may now revert to Amendment No. 152 and subsections (4), (5) and (6). The amendment clarifies who has the duty of nominating the Church representatives on these committees. In our view, Amendment No. 145, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is not drafted in the light of the most recent education legislation, the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, which provided for the designation of schools of a religious character and therefore removes the necessity for the slightly elliptic reference in the Minister's amendment. Moreover some religious schools are not voluntary but foundation schools. My amendment refers directly to these as distinct from Church of England and Roman Catholic schools. As the Committee will be aware, they include not only Methodist and Jewish schools, which we have had for a long time, but also a small number of Muslim, Sikh and Seventh Day Adventist schools. They too should be represented on the appropriate scrutiny committee. Subsection (7) of the proposed new clause contains a direct reference to parent governors' representatives. I note the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, which has the same effect. I hope very much that the Minister will look sympathetically on the two amendments.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support both amendments of the right reverend Prelate. I ask the Minister to what extent, if any, these amendments, if carried into the Bill, would affect the exercise of absolute discretion under Clause 2(1)(b).

Baroness Hanham: I speak to Amendment No. 142 which stands in my name. This small amendment would enable members of the executive to sit on scrutiny committees rather than be totally excluded from them. One of my many worries is that this whole system of executive and scrutiny is adversarial. It has already been suggested that the executive and the scrutiny bodies will be at each others' throats. I can see that it would not be plausible for an executive member who has a responsibility for what is being done on a scrutiny committee to sit on that scrutiny committee, but I can see no reason why an executive member who does not bear full responsibility for an area should not be able to sit on another scrutiny committee. Indeed, he or she may provide extremely valuable input. My amendment seeks to ensure that where there is more than one scrutiny committee, executive members can be part of them.

Lord King of West Bromwich: As a new Member of the Chamber I do not have extensive expertise in relation to many issues which come before it. However, as regards the particular matter of this Bill, I have current experience as the leader of a major metropolitan authority, Sandwell, and I feel able to support government Amendment No. 140 and associated amendments.
	Nowhere in the Local Government Bill has there been so much misrepresentation as on the issue of delegation to executive members of councils and the "call in" power of scrutiny committees. Let us be clear what the current committee structure does. First, chairs of committees already have delegated power. Secondly, non-elected officers also have considerable delegation. Currently, many day-to-day decisions are made in keeping with the manifesto policy of a controlling political group which cannot be reversed.
	Obviously any chair worth his or her salt will take contentious matters to his or her political group, but therein lies another problem. Group decisions are private, made behind closed doors and binding on all members of that group. In many cases to claim that they are debated in full committee or even full council is, to say the least, a charade and certainly offers no transparency for the electorate. At best, debates are academic; at worst, they constitute play acting.
	No council can operate without delegated powers, most of which currently lie with non-elected officers, not elected members. The new executive arrangements will allow elected members to be much more involved in delegated decision-making. I suggest that that is a step in favour of democracy, not against it. Coupled with the executive is the scrutiny role which, for the first time, gives council members the right to examine and challenge decision-making without a party whip. That is refreshing transparency.
	Obviously, it is not workable for every dot and comma of every decision to be called in. Such power would render a local authority unable to function. It is right and proper for scrutiny committees to ensure that council policy is being followed and best value achieved. Provided that delegation is carried out within the policy of the council and within financial and other standing orders, it streamlines local government fit for the 21st century. There may be occasional abuses but any officer or member can be dealt with by the controlling group or the standards committee.
	It is right to limit the power of "call in" as such a power could be used to wreck the policies upon which a controlling group had been elected. The Government's intentions are both right and sensible. I believe that they should be supported by the Committee.

Lord Tope: I return to the amendments spoken to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. I have considerable sympathy as regards the position in which he and his colleagues find themselves. I congratulate them on the ingenuity with which they have tackled a situation which is fundamentally flawed. If I recall correctly, the right reverend Prelate commented that the Bill appeared not to recognise--or appeared not to be up-to-date with--what is happening as regards the reforms to school government. I speak more usually in this Chamber on education matters but I spend most of my life outside it working in local government. It has long been clear to me that Ministers and officials in the DETR and the DfEE have little knowledge, or certainly little understanding, of what each other is doing. The dilemma we are discussing illustrates that better than any other.
	It is not much more than a year ago that we debated what is now the School Standards and Framework Act, Section 9 of which requires that representatives of parent governors be appointed to education committees. At that time the DETR took measures--which we now have before us--which effectively get rid of education committees. Today we are discussing how to deal with the consequences of that. I recall the predecessor of the right reverend Prelate--as the latter said--raising the issue as long ago as 1998. It was obvious that the problem would arise. This matter exposes a fundamental flaw in the Government's determination to make a total division between executive and scrutiny responsibilities.
	Church representatives on education committees, teacher representatives on education committees, and now parent governor representatives on education committees, wish to sit on the body which is taking the executive decisions. I spent many happy hours working on the then school standards Bill and I realised that it was the Government's intention that parent governors should sit on the decision-making committees. However, that is not possible under the executive/scrutiny split. Therefore, the Church and others are now trying to find what are much less satisfactory ways of dealing with that inherent and fundamental difficulty.
	As I said, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate and his colleagues on finding a means to address the difficulty. I am totally sympathetic to the intentions of that amendment. I have a slight concern that subsection (2) of the proposed new clause refers to there being an overview and scrutiny committee responsible,
	"solely in respect of the authority's functions as a local education authority".
	I understand that. That should certainly be its principal purpose. The intention is to replicate as far as possible the previous role of an education committee, except as regards executive decision-making powers. Such an overview and scrutiny committee could very well have--and, in my view, should have--responsibility for matters connected with learning for life which are not strictly those of a local education authority. Obvious examples are libraries and heritage. They are not necessarily strictly matters for a local education authority as such, but they may quite often be appropriate within that committee.
	That, in a sense, is a detail. The principle is right. If the Government believe--as they were telling us during the School Standards and Framework Bill--that the Churches should continue with the role that for many years they have had on education committees and that parent governor representatives should now have a similar role on decision-making bodies, that is what should be. In recognising what is, rather than what should be, the right reverend Prelate, in effect, seeks to give them almost a decision-making power after the event. That is much less satisfactory; but if that is the way we have to deal with it, so be it.
	It is regrettable because it places such people in an essentially negative role rather than a positive one. In my experience, Church representatives on education committees overwhelmingly have taken a positive and constructive role. In effect, by this amendment we are being forced to give them a negative role of either trying to stop or to at least delay something happening. That could make a fundamental difference to the relationship between the education authority and the Churches. It is an irresolvable difficulty if the Government are determined--as they are--to go ahead with a total split between executive and scrutiny.
	So those are our concerns. As I said, I have great sympathy with the position in which both the Churches and parent governors now find themselves. The amendment is one way of trying to deal with that problem--a problem which, in my view, we should not have.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: Very briefly, I express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Tope--who has vast experience of local government, whereas I have none--for the reasons he gave and for the difficulty he expressed about the division of functions. I wholeheartedly endorse, again, his support for the amendments of the right reverend Prelate.

Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I may add a few words on the question of support for overview and scrutiny committees, speaking in particular to Amendment No. 146, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. The noble Lord is a little unambitious in seeking to provide that each overview and scrutiny committee shall have "an officer". I would go further than that in terms of numbers, but I support him on the point of principle.
	Because the point has been made to me, I know that I am not alone in my concern about the conflict of interests that officers may suffer. I will speak to the difficult position in which officers may find themselves and the need to involve them fully in the process when we come to later amendments, but there is an obvious problem in an individual advising both the executive and the committee and scrutinising the decisions of the executive.
	The question has been posed to me--I cannot give an answer to it; I hope the Minister will be able to do so--as to who is to decide at a scrutiny and overview committee which officer will answer the questions. Are the members or the officers to decide that issue? There may be a different answer if we are talking about senior or junior officers. A point has been made to me that deciding which officers at which level of seniority should answer could lead the discussion to take a different route. It has also been put to me that the load, particularly on senior officers, is changing dramatically as a result of this new arrangement. This observation comes from some experience of an authority where a similar provision for a separate scrutiny arrangement is being used.
	At a traditional committee meeting, very often a junior officer will speak on a relatively minor matter. At a scrutiny committee it may be expected that a senior officer will cover an awful lot of ground on matters within a single department. I am not suggesting that senior officers should shrug off responsibility; and, in saying that junior officers often deal with minor matters, I am not suggesting that they have done so in the past under the traditional arrangements. But there are practical difficulties which are almost so great as to outweigh claims about transparency. The load on the officers involved in the process may be very difficult. They are human beings who are now having to serve a number of masters--including their own professionalism--and they may have to spend an awful lot of time, to put it in the vernacular, "mugging up" on detail before turning up at a scrutiny committee; or they may be in a position--I am not alone in your Lordships' House in having been in such a position--of simply having to "busk it" and work it out on the night.
	I do not believe that adequate consideration has been given to how in the real world, with real people filling these posts, this split will work.

Lord Whitty: At least in this House we never "busk it" and work it out on the night.
	A wide range of issues has been raised in the debate. In one sense the key issue--we do not have a meeting of minds here--is that, in one way or another, noble Lords are seeking to dilute the clear distinction between the executive function and the scrutiny function. We have been very careful not to do that and to clarify that distinction as far as possible.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, tackled this up front in that she proposes that we should delete the clause which excludes executive members from scrutiny committees. That would be a retrograde step in relation to what we seek to do. It could lead to some very strange situations. Although the noble Baroness may feel we are drawing too tight a line--as other noble Lords also suggest--we believe that, unless we draw a clear line between the role of the executive and the role of the scrutiny committee, this new system will not work. I therefore have to resist Amendment No. 142, which stands in the name of the noble Baroness. That will also affect some of my answers to other questions.
	Turning to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I believe that his concerns have been addressed by other government amendments. It is clear in the Bill that the role of the overview and scrutiny committee is not only to scrutinise decisions post factum, after they have been made, but to contribute to the making of those decisions and to provide an ongoing scrutiny of the executive on future policy and development. The face of the Bill should make that clear; the guidance should make that clear; and we have tabled further amendments to make that clear today, particularly Amendment No. 137. That amendment states that the committee is to,
	"make reports or recommendations ... with respect to the discharge of any functions which are the responsibility of the executive".
	It is quite clear that that refers not only to a review of decisions but to recommendations on how a function should be discharged in the future and how it is being discharged currently.
	I also do not support Amendment No. 140A, which is an amendment to my Amendment No. 140. As I made clear when speaking to that amendment, it would be inappropriate to allow overview and scrutiny committees to discharge other functions. The functions of planning and licensing, which are not covered by the executive function, need to be carried out by bodies which have an executive and decision-taking role. The overview and scrutiny committees are intended to hold the executive to account for what it has done and what it plans to do. The purpose of Amendment No. 140 is to ensure that separation. I do not believe that it should be blurred by giving the overview and scrutiny committees some executive powers, which is what the proposal implies.
	I hope that I understood the first intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, on what is covered by the scrutiny of executive functions. However, I was not sure whether he was referring to Clause 2(1)(b), relating to the best value provisions, which are clearly an executive function and therefore overseen by the overview and scrutiny committees, or to Clause 21(1)(b) relating to the functions which the executive may undertake but is not mandatorily required to undertake.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am grateful to the Minister, because this is a very important point. I was referring to Clause 2(1)(b), which we discussed with Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.

Lord Whitty: In that case, the noble Lord is referring to the best value and well-being provisions. They are an executive function and under these provisions are therefore overseen by the overview and scrutiny committees.
	As regards staff support for the overview and scrutiny committees, addressed by Amendment No. 146, I have some sympathy with Members of the Committee and councillors up and down the land who are grappling with the issue. Clearly, substantial adjustments must be made to the way in which councils structure themselves and the roles particularly of senior officers. It is important that the overview and scrutiny committees have support and are able to question other officers of the authority.
	However, we do not wish to make a mandatory requirement that there should clearly be separate officer support. We believe that it is a matter for local choice, which will identify the split and which level of officer is responsible for the different forms of answering and support for the committees. While we recommend councils to follow the course of designating a clear support officer, we recognise that that may not be feasible in all cases, particularly in relation to small districts. Therefore, we are not going down the mandatory road. We recognise the point which the amendment attempts to address, and trust that the guidance will be sufficient to meet it.
	As regards the final subsection of Amendment No. 146--that is, the requests from members of overview and scrutiny committees for papers--we do not regard it as necessary. Under the proposed arrangements, there will be a duty on the executive to make publicly available the same papers as are required under current law.
	Amendment No. 148 deals with the role of the overview and scrutiny committee in relation to the monitoring officer. There is a partial misunderstanding. A monitoring officer is the proper person to deal with claims of impropriety or maladministration. Under the 1989 Act, he or she is under a duty to make a report to the authority. The overview and scrutiny committee is not the right forum for officers to bring concerns. These committees are there to overview policy and carry it out, not to look at the legality or otherwise of such decisions. Officers should therefore not refer to those committees except as part of a more general concern. If it is a specific matter of propriety, that is for the standards committees and boards. Therefore, I do not believe that the amendment addresses the appropriate committee or resolves the problem accordingly.
	I turn to Amendment No. 150 tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. This is a helpful amendment which is in line with the recommendations we have set out in guidance. I therefore accept the principle lying behind it. We share his concern to ensure that Church representatives and all those represented on overview and scrutiny committees can have their concerns placed on the agenda, thereby forcing the executive to respond directly to any concerns they may have. With the leave of the Committee and the right reverend Prelate, I should like to take away the amendment to see whether we can reflect that position in the drafting.
	Amendment No. 152 rightly looks to enshrine the important role of Church representatives. I join those who pay tribute to the previous and future roles of Church representatives on education committees; they have been key players. We have every intention that they should continue to play a key role and I had hoped that our Amendment No. 145 would satisfy concerns. However, the right reverend Prelate and others have said that that is not the case.
	The noble Lord, Lord Tope, intervened to make a cross-reference to the education provisions. If there is a mismatch between the two, I must in part stand responsible. As the noble Lord will recall, I was once an education spokesperson and therefore ought to be an example of joined-up government. However, I recall that during the course of the debate someone--perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Tope--foresaw the change of circumstances in which the Church representatives on education committees would be transformed by the new government proposals, and my current department clarified the position. If there remains a difficulty between the two, we must consider it and amend legislation accordingly to meet the concern. If the right reverend Prelate accepts that assurance, I shall take the amendment away and examine it.
	Amendment No. 149 also relates to religious representation. It would enshrine on the face of the Bill the role of Church and parent governors. We wish to go slightly further than the amendment implies, in that they would have voting rights on the committee. That would continue the voting rights which they have on education committees under the current system. These rights are statutory for representatives from the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, which clearly provide the vast majority of denominational schools under our system. The right reverend Prelate and others referred to other denominations, as does the amendment, and councils may be directed by the Secretary of State to include representatives of other religious groups where they provide maintained schools in the area.

Lord Dixon-Smith: Amendment No. 149 refers to people serving on overview and scrutiny committees from the,
	"main religious faiths within an area".
	Many communities with a large number of non-Christian faith religions do not have their own schools but are served through normal maintained schools and sometimes Church schools which are not otherwise normally represented. I hope that the Minister will consider that point, so far he has missed it.

Lord Whitty: I am not sure that I have missed it as much as taken a different view. The statutory provisions, and to some extent the discretionary provisions, closely relate to the engagement of those who provide schools in the education provision for the local authority area. That is why for the most part we are talking about Church of England and Roman Catholic schools.
	There are now schools maintained by other faiths and denominations. Representatives of religions which do not have a maintained school in the area are in a wider category. There is nothing under the provisions in the Bill to stop co-option of such representatives on to the overview and scrutiny committee, but the voting rights accrue to those who have maintained schools within the system. We should probably wish to maintain that distinction, although I am happy to look again at aspects of it.
	I oppose Amendment No. 166, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. Appointments to the overview and scrutiny committees will have to reflect the overall balance of the council. Therefore, the appointment of individuals to sit on committees is a matter for the party group on the council. The appointment of councillors outside the executive should be affected by that system, which should remain in place. Party groups will be best placed to decide where their resources may be most effectively deployed in terms of which member they wish to put on the appropriate overview and scrutiny committee. It is possible, as indeed it is under the present system, that all councillors may wish to sit on one particular committee. Such a decision would have to be left to the party groups. We should bear in mind also that the overview and scrutiny committee is only one of the councillors' roles outside the executive. There are planning committees, licensing committees, and so forth.
	I oppose also Amendment No. 167. I agree that it is important that the members of the overview and scrutiny committees are able to discuss any action by the executive. We have tabled amendments to Clause 15 to clarify that matter, particularly Amendment No. 140. It would be up to local choice exactly how a mechanism would work in a particular local authority. Our draft guidance puts forward various suggestions as to how that mechanism should work, but we do not need to go into further detail on the face of the Bill.
	We made it clear in guidance that any member of the committee should be able to have his concerns on the agenda so as to ensure that the executive may be properly held to account and that individual councillors may raise concerns. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord that what lies behind his amendment is not necessary on the face of the Bill. I am sorry that that is quite a wide-ranging response to the debate. I see that the noble Baroness wishes to intervene.

Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful to the Minister. I return briefly to the question of officer support for the overview and scrutiny committee. The Minister says that it is a matter for each local authority to determine how to deploy its resources. Will he accept that it is indeed a question of resources and that many local authorities will take the view that in order to do the job properly, they actually need more officer resource because there will be different jobs to be done in supporting the executive and in supporting the overview and scrutiny committees? If he accepts that, will he accept the corollary that it is a question of financial resources as well? In respect of funding local authorities--in particular, the decisions made centrally about the constraints on expenditure and so on--will the Minister tell the Committee how the Government propose to deal with that difficult issue?

Lord Whitty: I recognise that a number of local authorities consider that in order to carry out the new system effectively they need additional staff. I should dispute that that was necessarily the general rule. Local authorities will need to look at their total functions within the new regime and within a best value climate. Therefore, I should not draw any overall conclusion as to numbers of staff. It is important that we all recognise, first, that this administration have in general provided substantial additional resources to local authorities; but, secondly, they have also left it to them to decide how best to deploy their resources. We have moved, and intend to move further, towards providing overall central government support to local government. Its representatives will then themselves decide on their priorities and staffing.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 132 to 135:
	Page 8, line 24, leave out ("ordinary").
	Page 8, line 25, at end insert--
	("(1A) Executive arrangements by a local authority must ensure that their overview and scrutiny committee has power (or their overview and scrutiny committees have power between them)--").
	Page 8, line 26, after ("to") insert ("review or").
	Page 8, line 26, after ("scrutinise") insert ("decisions made, or other action taken, in connection with").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 136:
	Page 8, line 26, after ("scrutinise") insert ("decisions made or which may be made or other action taken or which may be taken in connection with").

Baroness Hamwee: In moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 141. Amendment No. 136, which provides that an overview and scrutiny committee may look at decisions which may be made or actions which may be taken in the future, seeks to continue the debate about the role of the executive and the scrutiny committees. We believe that it would be a great pity if they were constrained from offering advice and making policy proposals.
	Clause 15, if the government amendments are taken into account, is largely, although I accept not entirely, about decisions made and action taken. The new government provision allows a call-in if a decision has not yet been implemented. The Select Committee of the House of Lords and of another place--of which a number of your Lordships were members--which examined the distant relative of the Bill last summer, took evidence from a number of people, including academics. As well as oral evidence, written evidence was submitted to us. Among that evidence was a memorandum from Professor John Stewart. He described the potential of an overview and scrutiny committee well. I shall quote fairly extensively from one paragraph of his memorandum. He said:
	"It is important to recognise that while non-executive councillors scrutinise the executive and hold it to account, they also can have an important role in supporting the executive. Certainly councillors from the same party as the executive will see themselves as having such a role and such support will be required. The executive will need support from other councillors, because it faces the danger of overload if it is to take over executive responsibilities, form committees, develop policies, propose strategies, provide community leadership and be involved in partnerships. That is being recognised in some of the transitional arrangements with the appointment of deputies, support groups of councillors and councillors as advisers. ... It is recognised that the executive may seek advice from an overview and scrutiny committee, but it is seen as advice from a separate body. The executive is likely to wish to work with council members in developing policy. Thus it might set up a group of councillors led by a cabinet member to develop policy in a particular area. An individual councillor could be invited to advise the cabinet on a particular topic. The executive might wish other councillors to sit upon cabinet committees".
	I could quote far more extensively from the evidence given to the Joint Select Committee, but I tabled the amendment simply to make clear again our concern that the role of the overview and scrutiny committee should not be so constrained as to not take advantage of what it might achieve.
	Amendment No. 141 seeks to extend the power of the committee to require the executive to refer to it decisions which the executive is about to make. I have described that as being either specific decisions or regarding an area of functions. I am concerned that the Bill will not give the real opportunity that should be given to the new committees to stop decisions being made. It will be all too possible for executives so to organise their affairs that they will not give the chance for the proper scrutiny which we all hope the new committees will achieve. In other words, they will implement decisions before they can ever be questioned. That is not how a good executive should behave as it would rapidly lose the confidence held in it. The role of legislation is not just to set out a framework but to set out some minimum standards. However, the Government appear not to wish to incorporate such a provision in the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: To some extent we are the victims of how the amendments have been grouped. I accept some of what the noble Baroness says but feel that the amendments in the previous group go as far as I am prepared to go. I hope the noble Baroness will recognise that I have gone some considerable way towards meeting the concerns which she expressed.
	In relation to Amendment No. 136, which seeks to amend Clause 15(1)(a), we have just agreed to Amendment No. 135, which deals with this issue. Overview and scrutiny committees have two broad roles: to scrutinise the decisions as such and to take an overview of broad policy issues and give advice to the executive and the full council on how they are carrying out their functions. Amendment No. 135 deals with the first of those roles. The wording which the noble Baroness seeks to add goes into the second of the two roles--the overview of future policy. We have made it clear that overview and scrutiny committees will have the power and responsibility to look at matters which the executive is considering in future.
	Our next amendment, Amendment No. 137, to which we shall come shortly, makes clear the wide-ranging role that overview and scrutiny committees will have to make reports or recommendations on any matters which are before the executive. In addition, the guidance which we have published makes it clear that in order to ensure good and effective decision-making the executive should itself be involving the overview and scrutiny committees in these decisions at a much earlier stage. I therefore think that the combination of the amendment which we have just agreed and the one we will move shortly meets the noble Baroness's concerns.
	Amendment No. 141 seeks to allow overview and scrutiny committees to be able to require the executive to refer proposed decisions to them before they are taken. We believe that Amendment No. 140, to which we shall come shortly and to which I have already spoken, will achieve a similar effect and therefore the noble Baroness's amendment is unnecessary. Our amendment gives overview and scrutiny committees the power to ask the executive to reconsider a decision which has been made but not implemented. I believe that that power and the other powers in the two earlier amendments have broadly the same effect as that which is set out in the noble Baroness's amendment, in that the executive can review decisions before they have an effect, the overview and scrutiny committee can oversee the activities of the executive prior to the making of a decision and it can review decisions and the policy as a whole. I therefore think that the point is already covered by the various amendments which we have put forward and by the guidance which in draft form has been before the Committee. I therefore ask the noble Baroness not to pursue the amendments.

Baroness Hamwee: As has already been said today, guidance is guidance and legislation is something more than that. I was aware of Amendment No. 140. Yes, indeed, we are the victims of groupings, as we always are when dealing with complicated Bills. My amendment raised perhaps rather broader points. I understand that it is not practicable to allow an overview and scrutiny committee to require the review of a decision which has been implemented as well as made. I do not expect it to have the power to undo what has become history. What I am concerned about is getting the balance right. I want to give a broad hint to an overview and scrutiny committee that it might make sure that it gets in ahead of the game and reviews the decisions which are about to be taken and implemented.
	I shall not pursue the matter now. It would probably be easier to review some of these points when we have the Bill as amended following the Committee stage. However, I remain a little concerned about whether the Government have gone far enough. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 137 and 138:
	Page 8, line 26, leave out ("the executive functions, and") and insert ("any functions which are the responsibility of the executive,
	( ) to make reports or recommendations to the authority or the executive with respect to the discharge of any functions which are the responsibility of the executive,
	( ) to review or scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken, in connection with the discharge of any functions which are not the responsibility of the executive,
	( ) to make reports or recommendations to the authority or the executive with respect to the discharge of any functions which are not the responsibility of the executive,").
	Page 8, line 29, leave out from beginning to ("on") in line 31.
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 139 not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 140:
	Page 8, line 32, at end insert--
	("( ) The power of an overview and scrutiny committee under subsection (1A)(a) to review or scrutinise a decision made but not implemented includes power--
	(a) to recommend that the decision be reconsidered by the person who made it, or
	(b) to arrange for its function under subsection (1A)(a), so far as it relates to the decision, to be exercised by the authority.
	( ) An overview and scrutiny committee of a local authority may not discharge any functions other than its functions under this section.
	( ) An overview and scrutiny committee of a local authority--
	(a) may appoint one or more sub-committees, and
	(b) may arrange for the discharge of any of its functions by any such sub-committee.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move.

[Amendment No. 140A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 140, not moved.]
	On Question, Amendment No. 140 agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 141 and 142 not moved.]

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 143:
	Page 8, line 33, leave out subsection (2) and insert--
	("(2) Not more than one-fifth of the members of an overview and scrutiny committee or sub-committee of such a committee may be members of the authority's executive.").

Baroness Hamwee: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 147A. To an extent we are again the victims of groupings. The amendment covers similar ground to that covered by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. Nevertheless, as I have the opportunity, I shall once again make the point that we are not happy with the proposed complete divide between the executive and the overview and scrutiny functions. Amendment No. 143 suggests that, rather than having a complete demarcation between the two, a limit should be written into the Bill. Amendment No. 143 provides that up to one-fifth of the members of an overview and scrutiny committee or sub-committee may be members of the authority's executive. I accept that that fraction was plucked out of the air. It is not a large fraction.
	In suggesting a limit, I make the point again that we believe that some overlap would be valuable. To have no overlap at all risks losing flexibility, future effective changes in the role of individual councillors, individual development--by that I mean the development of the experience of individual councillors--and cross-fertilisation between different parts of the local authority.
	Amendment No. 147 refers to the question of the chairing of the committee and seeks to obtain assurances from the Government that guidance, which is the subject of the clause, will include chairing in its provisions for operation. I raise this issue because the comment has been made to me from a number of quarters that the what I might call more old-fashioned authorities may well put in place as chair of the new executive and scrutiny committee a member who regards himself or herself as a member of the controlling group who may merely continue the current unsatisfactory practices which the Bill seeks to remove. I refer to a lack of openness and to a too cosy set-up. I am concerned that if the chair is a member of the majority party, where the chair sees the primary loyalty as being to a party rather than to the public service, the existing position will simply be reinforced.
	The amendment does not state that the chair must be a member of another party. After all, in some authorities there is only one party. It does not seek to provide that there should be no such committee if that is the case. Government guidance would be valuable in giving the public and the opposition material to use when arguing against any such proposal from the majority group, which, as I say, may simply reinforce current bad practices and not move forward under the new agenda set by the Government. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: I am afraid that this is just a further move to dilute the general clarity of distinction that we want to achieve through the Bill between the scrutiny role and that of the executive. The position is not altered by the fact that the amendment provides for a maximum number. A size restriction does not detract from the fundamental principle; namely, that we do not consider it sensible for an executive member to be allowed to sit on a committee that is charged with scrutinising that executive. I therefore cannot accept Amendment No. 143.
	Amendment No. 147A would be slightly altered by government Amendment No. 147, which, so far as concerns the regulation-making power, would delete the reference which it amends. As we have not reached that amendment in terms of ordinal progression, it is slightly difficult for the noble Baroness to take that on board when referring to the amendment in this group. If the noble Baroness is, broadly speaking, happy with Amendment No. 147, Amendment No. 147A cannot stand.
	I should point out also that the question of chairing, covered by the amendment, is, par excellence, a matter for the local council. It should not be regulated or heavily defined in guidance. Therefore, even if the noble Baroness were able to reformulate the amendment, taking account of the fact that, as I hope, the Committee is about to accept Amendment No. 147, it would not be appropriate to pursue it.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Before my noble friend replies, perhaps the Minister will clarify a point regarding Amendment No. 143. If executive members have portfolios that go wider than the traditional committee line, as many people are interested in developing--so that, for instance, an executive member has a portfolio for social inclusion work--may that person be a member of a scrutiny or overview committee dealing with some of the functions included in that portfolio? My noble friend spoke about cross-fertilisation. The Government's model is too rigid. It envisages that executive members will have exactly the same lines of definition for their portfolios as the scrutiny overview committee. I thought that the Bill envisaged a more flexible possibility.

Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness confuses the issue somewhat. Under the Bill, a councillor could not sit on any scrutiny committee overseeing an executive function for which that councillor was responsible. That applies across the board, with a clear distinction between the executive as a whole and the scrutiny committees as a whole. The definition of "portfolio" is not a relevant issue. A councillor cannot be both an executive member and scrutinise that executive function. That needs to be clear.
	We wish to have broader portfolios and more innovative structures that will lead to more joined-up local government. We also want to see some interaction. The clear separation of membership does not represent a barrier to interaction. There will be continuous interaction between the executives as a whole and the overview and scrutiny committees as a whole. The noble Baroness referred, for example, to the memorandum submitted by John Stewart. That kind of interaction will take place, and will do so on a broader range of policy strategy than has been the case with the compartmentalised committee structures in many traditional local authorities. We shall not achieve those objectives by relaxing the general distinction between the executive and the scrutiny functions.

Baroness Hamwee: I am sad that the Minister did not seek to answer the substance of my comments on the second of the two amendments in this group. I am among the first to support the idea of local authorities organising their own affairs. I chose my wording as delicately as I could in referring to some old-fashioned authorities. However, there is genuine concern that the new mechanisms should not simply reinforce old bad habits. We may well return to the point at the next stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 144:
	Page 8, line 33, after ("authority") insert (", or a sub-committee of such a committee,").

Lord Whitty: I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 144 and 145. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 145:
	Page 8, line 34, at end insert--
	("(2A) An overview and scrutiny committee of a local authority, or any sub-committee of such a committee, may include persons who are not members of the authority, but (subject to subsection (2C)) any such persons are not entitled to vote at any meeting of such a committee or sub-committee on any question which falls to be decided at that meeting.
	(2B) An overview and scrutiny committee of a local authority, or a sub-committee of such a committee, which has functions in relation to any education function which is the responsibility of the executive must include persons appointed--
	(a) to represent parent governors at maintained schools in the authority's area, and
	(b) to represent persons who appoint foundation governors for voluntary schools in the authority's area.
	(2C) Any person appointed to an overview and scrutiny committee or sub-committee by virtue of subsection (2B) is to be entitled to vote at any meeting of the committee or sub-committee on any question which relates to any education function mentioned in that subsection and which falls to be decided at the meeting.
	(2D) An overview and scrutiny committee of a local authority, or a sub-committee of such a committee, is to be treated--
	(a) as a committee or sub-committee of a principal council for the purposes of Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972 (access to meetings and documents of certain authorities, committees and sub-committees), and
	(b) as a body to which section 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (duty to allocate seats to political groups) applies.").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 146 not moved.]

Baroness Serota: If Amendment No. 147 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 147A.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 147:
	Page 8, line 41, leave out subsections (5) and (6) and insert--
	("( ) In this section--
	"foundation governor" and "voluntary school" have the same meaning as in the Education Act 1996,
	"maintained school" and "parent governor" have the same meaning as in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 148 to 150 not moved.]
	Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 151:
	After Clause 15, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:ACCESS TO MEETINGS AND INFORMATION ETC
	(".--(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision--
	(a) with respect to the access of the public to meetings of executives or committees of executives (including provision enabling such meetings to take place in private),
	(b) for or in connection with requiring written records to be kept of decisions made, or other action taken, by executives, or members or committees of executives, in connection with the discharge of functions which are the responsibility of executives,
	(c) for or in connection with requiring written records falling within paragraph (b) to include reasons,
	(d) for or in connection with requiring written records falling within paragraph (b) to be made available to the public,
	(e) for or in connection with the creation of offences in respect of any rights or requirements created or imposed by the regulations.
	(2) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (1) includes provision which applies or reproduces (with or without modifications) any provisions of Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972.
	(3) Nothing in subsection (2) affects the generality of the power under subsection (1).").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 152:
	After Clause 15, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE: LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITY
	(" .--(1) This section applies to a local authority which is a local education authority.
	(2) Each local authority to which this section applies shall have a single overview and scrutiny committee (referred to in this section as the relevant committee) appointed for the purposes described in section 15(1) solely in respect of the authority's functions as a local education authority.
	(3) A relevant committee may require that any decision of the authority's executive shall not be implemented, or that implementation of it shall not continue, until it has been approved at a meeting of all the councillors of the authority at which a report of the relevant committee on the decision in question was considered.
	(4) Where any maintained school in the authority's area is a Church of England school, the relevant committee shall include at least one full voting member nominated by the Diocesan Board of Education for a diocese of the Church of England which includes all or part of the authority's area.
	(5) Where any maintained school in the authority's area is a Roman Catholic school, the relevant committee shall include at least one full voting member nominated by the bishop of a Roman Catholic diocese which includes all or part of the authority's area.
	(6) The Secretary of State may issue directions to local authorities for the purposes of securing as members of a relevant committee representatives of those who appoint foundation governors for schools designated under section 69 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 as having a religious character but which are not Church of England schools or Roman Catholic schools.
	(7) Regulations may require the relevant committee for each authority to include one or more persons elected, in accordance with regulations, as representatives of parent governors at maintained schools in the authority's area.
	(8) Expressions used in this section shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be construed in accordance with the Education Acts.").

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: In the light of the Minister's earlier reply I shall not move the amendment at this stage.

[Amendment No. 152 not moved.]
	Clause 16 agreed to.
	Schedule 1 [Executive arrangements: further provision]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 153:
	Page 44, line 6, leave out ("under which the executive takes the form specified in section 10(2)") and insert ("which provide for a mayor and cabinet executive").

Lord Whitty: With the leave of the Committee, perhaps I may move Amendments Nos. 153 to 162 en bloc.

Lord Williams of Elvel: Does my noble friend intend to move these amendments? If so, will he stand up rather than speak from a sedentary position?

Lord Whitty: I shall oblige my noble friend. I spoke to Amendments Nos. 153 to 165 with Amendment No. 59. I intend to move Amendments Nos. 154 to 165 en bloc. I beg to move Amendment No. 153.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 154 to 165:
	Page 44, line 11, leave out ("as his deputy").
	Page 44, line 11, at end insert ("to be the deputy mayor of the executive").
	Page 44, line 11, at end insert--
	("(4) Subject to sub-paragraph (5), the deputy mayor of the executive, unless he ceases to be a member of the authority, is to hold office until the end of the term of office of the elected mayor.
	(5) The elected mayor may, if he thinks fit, remove the deputy mayor of the executive from office.
	(6) Where a vacancy occurs in the office of deputy mayor of the executive, the elected mayor must appoint another person in his place.
	(7) If for any reason the elected mayor is unable to act or the office of elected mayor is vacant, the deputy mayor of the executive must act in his place.
	(8) If for any reason--
	(a) the elected mayor is unable to act or the office of elected mayor is vacant, and
	(b) the deputy mayor of the executive is unable to act or the office of deputy mayor of the executive is vacant,
	the executive must act in the elected mayor's place or must arrange for a member of the executive or the authority to act in his place.").
	Page 44, line 14, leave out ("under which the executive takes the form specified in section 10(3)") and insert ("which provide for a leader and cabinet executive").
	Page 44, line 23, leave out ("under which the executive takes the form specified in section 10(4)") and insert ("which provide for a mayor and council manager executive").
	Page 44, line 25, leave out ("as his deputy").
	Page 44, line 25, leave out ("who is neither") and insert ("to be the deputy mayor of the executive.
	(2A) The deputy mayor of the executive may not be--").
	Page 44, line 26, after ("vice-chairman") insert ("of the authority").
	Page 44, line 27, at end insert--
	("(2B) Subject to sub-paragraph (2C), the deputy mayor of the executive, unless he ceases to be a member of the authority, is to hold office until the end of the term of office of the elected mayor.
	(2C) The elected mayor may, if he thinks fit, remove the deputy mayor of the executive from office.
	(2D) Where a vacancy occurs in the office of deputy mayor of the executive, the elected mayor must appoint another person in his place.
	(2E) If for any reason the elected mayor is unable to act or the office of elected mayor is vacant, the deputy mayor of the executive must act in his place.
	(2F) If for any reason--
	(a) the elected mayor is unable to act or the office of elected mayor is vacant, and
	(b) the deputy mayor of the executive is unable to act or the office of deputy mayor of the executive is vacant,
	the council manager must act in the elected mayor's place.").
	Page 44, line 28, at beginning insert ("Subject to sub-paragraph (3A),").
	Page 44, line 31, at end insert--
	("(3A) The council manager is entitled to attend, and speak at, meetings of an overview and scrutiny committee or sub-committee of the authority only if invited or required to do so by the committee or sub-committee.").
	Page 45, line 8, at end insert--
	("5.--(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for or in connection with the appointment of a person (an "assistant") to provide assistance to an elected mayor.
	(2) Regulations under this paragraph may include provision with respect to the terms and conditions of appointment of an assistant.
	(3) Nothing in sub-paragraph (2) affects the generality of the power under sub-paragraph (1).
	(4) In this paragraph "specified" means specified in regulations under this paragraph.").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 17 [Absence of requirement for political balance]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 17 shall stand part of the Bill?

Baroness Hamwee: I should like to put one short question on Clause 17. The clause provides that it is not necessary to have political balance on a local authority executive or a committee thereof. If so, can an elected mayor choose to be supported by a cabinet in effect that bears no resemblance to the political balance of the elected council? I make a point against my own party. It is not unknown for some Liberal Democrats not to get on with party colleagues as well as they might. I daresay that that is replicated in all parties. It is possible that there is a Liberal Democrat majority on a council and a Liberal Democrat mayor but that individual finds greater identity of view, or fewer difficulties of personality, with members of another party. Therefore, the administration may not reflect the council as elected. I believe that that is correct but I should be glad to have the Minister's view. It would take a fairly daft leader to do that on the basis of the leader and cabinet model, but such has been known. One can imagine the mayhem if an elected leader chose an executive from a minority party.

Lord Whitty: The understanding of the noble Baroness is correct. In those circumstances, the Act will not lay down the requirement that there be political balance, or that the leader must necessarily draw his or her executive from either a politically balanced council or his or her own party. I do not know what deep anxieties within the Liberal Democrat Party are reflected by the possibility of any alternative. Perhaps I should not inquire in case the question is returned to me. The principle behind the clause is that in these circumstances there should be flexibility and the composition of the executive is not politically defined.

Clause 17 agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 166 and 167 not moved.]
	Clause 18 [Proposals]:
	[Amendments Nos. 168 to 170 not moved.]

Lord Laming: moved Amendment No. 171:
	Page 9, line 13, leave out paragraph (b) and insert--
	("(b) ensure they deliver both value for money and quality standards of service").

Lord Laming: I shall be brief in moving Amendment No. 171. I am sure that the Committee does not want me to rehearse the points I made at Second Reading. I regard certain parts of this Bill as a continuation of the process of centralisation. For many years there has been an increase in central control over local government. Clause 18 accentuates the power of central government even to determine the structures to be used by local authorities. There are more than 400 local authorities in this country where populations range from 30,000 to over 1 million. Yet each local authority will be required to submit to the Secretary of State proposals to manage its business. Earlier the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, indicated his concern, shared by many of us, about ensuring that good, capable people put themselves forward to be elected as members of local authorities. I believe that requirements of this kind will deter such people if they believe that local government is becoming more and more an agent of central government.
	Central government has established through the best value initiative a powerful method to evaluate performance, and I applaud the excellent work that has been done under it. A methodology has been established whereby it is possible to judge performance against both value for money and quality of service delivered. A number of interesting developments are taking place, including joint reviews of local authorities, to look not so much at the process but the impact of local government achievements. Surely, it is that about which we should be concerned. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: We on these Benches have some sympathy with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Laming. In particular, of all the matters that a local authority may be required to do when it draws up proposals for the operation of executive arrangements, Clause 18(1)(b) is perhaps one of the least important. It might have said that the matter should be debated by the full council, or that the council should ensure that the arrangements fulfilled what one would like to see as the principal purposes under Clause 2(1) and those things that the council should be doing, which the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, also seeks to achieve. However, to write onto the face of the Bill that one of the important duties of the council is to send a copy of the proposals to the Secretary of State is a centralist sentiment. I do not believe that that is the central issue to be addressed once the local authority has drawn up its proposals. Clause 18(3) provides that,
	"a local authority must take reasonable steps to consult local government electors, and other interested parties".
	I would have thought that that was far more important than informing the Secretary of State.
	If the object of the Secretary of State seeing the proposals is to ensure that, for example, the executive's balance of functions is about right in order to fulfil the purposes outlined in Clause 2, it is reasonable to have the views of the local population as to the fulfilment of that function. I do not believe that the local electorate would have an enormous interest in whether or not the executive arrangements were of one kind or another until it had seen them in operation for a period. But I understand the point to which the noble Lord is moving with his amendment. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister why it is of particular importance that this matter is on the face of the Bill.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment No. 171 replaces a requirement on authorities to send their proposals to the Secretary of State with a requirement that authorities should deliver value for money and quality standards of service. The Government have no problem with the localist sentiment behind the amendment of the noble Lord, nor with the laudable objectives of value for money and quality standards of service which the amendment proposes. We support the view that that requirement should be placed on authorities. The Government are keen to see a great diversity of practice emerge under this Bill and best value legislation is already in place. As the noble Lord said, some striking examples of good practice are emerging.
	However, we would be concerned about striking from the Bill the requirement on an authority to send to the Secretary of State a copy of its proposals. This is not an approval mechanism. It is in place so that Government can have a picture of what is occurring and the progress being made. We want to see efficient, transparent and accountable local government and we believe that it will be delivered through the establishment of new executive arrangements with a separate accountable executive. We therefore naturally want to be able to monitor what is going on and a simple duty on local authorities to send copies of their proposals to the Secretary of State seems an eminently sensible way to proceed.
	The Bill includes the power, therefore, in Clause 23 to require a referendum in circumstances to be prescribed in regulations. A draft of those is at page 141 of the package of draft guidance and regulations made available recently to the House. The circumstances expressed in general terms include where the timetable for implementation of proposals is very protracted, where reasonable steps have not been taken to consult openly in developing those proposals, and where the authority does not implement in line with the stated timetable in those proposals. Such a power is necessary to ensure that the actions taken locally reflect what local people want--here I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer--and that those wishes are put in place. I can reassure the noble Baroness that there is nothing sinister in this. The power to intervene is a fall-back power to deal with situations of inertia or abuse. But the power cannot operate if authorities are not required to send to the Government a copy of their proposals.
	The Government cannot accept this amendment as drafted, therefore, but would be happy to consider how provision on the basis of the noble Lord's amendment might be included in the Bill in addition to the current wording of Clause 18(1). On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Laming: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for her support. If I may say so, she expressed the issue somewhat better than me, and I am grateful.
	I am grateful to the Minister for that constructive and helpful reply on the basis of which I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 172:
	Page 9, line 17, leave out (" 11(1)(b)") and insert (" 11(2)(b)").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 173:
	Page 9, line 18, leave out ("subject of the executive arrangements") and insert ("responsibility of the executive").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 173A:
	Page 9, line 21, at end insert ("and representatives of officers of the local authority").

Baroness Hamwee: Grouped with Amendment No. 173A is a number of amendments. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to the first amendment in the group but speak to my amendments to the Minister's amendment only after he has spoken to his amendment. The grouped amendments are Amendments Nos. 173 to 176, 178, 179 to 182, 186, 187, 189, 195 to 198, 243, 252, 253 and 370.
	Amendment No. 173A proposes that representatives of officers of the local authority shall be included in those who are consulted when a local authority draws up its proposals with respect to executive arrangements. Clause 18(3) provides, quite properly, that a local authority must take reasonable steps to consult local government electors and other interested persons. The Minister may tell me that officers of the authority come within that latter category. However, I believe that they have not only a specific interest but a contribution to make because of their experience.
	I spoke earlier of the difficulties that I foresee for officers. There may be considerable tensions for officers who seek to serve effectively and impartially the administration, members of the opposition, an executive and members of an overview and scrutiny committee. The officer structure required for the proposals deserves careful consideration. Officers should be in a position formally to comment on them.
	Other noble Lords in different parts of the country will be aware that, increasingly, chief executives and senior managers tend to leave a local authority following a change in political control. We were not accustomed to that 10 or 15 years ago. It illustrates the difficulties that follow from the close relationship that senior officers have with the senior members of an authority.
	Officers will have responsibilities to deal with the probing of the overview and scrutiny committee. They must be clear about the separation of responsibilities and accountabilities between the staff serving the executive and those serving the overview and scrutiny committee. Consideration must be given to the support provided to the latter through background papers, framing questions and progress chasing; and consideration of the extent to which a member of an overview and scrutiny committee should be assisted, or briefed, in challenging the decisions made by an executive member. Where do loyalties lie?
	Those difficulties could impact adversely on the member-officer relationship. If there is an over-emphasis on informality, back benchers may feel excluded. If relatively junior officers--they may not have a great deal of experience of dealing with elected members--are not helped to develop their political awareness, they could fail to provide the support which members may require. One can anticipate the frustration of members and the difficulties of officers.
	I take my comments from a paper by an academic on concerns that might arise and could describe them at greater length. I shall not do so tonight but return to the thrust of the amendment. It should be recognised that officers have a place in the consultation leading to the decision on executive arrangements and, the converse, on the overview and scrutiny arrangements they serve. I beg to move.

Lord Dixon-Smith: Clause 21(5) provides for the possibility of changing from an elected mayor type of executive to another type. I recall passionate debates between the Minister and my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon about a recall of the London mayor, but this is not quite that situation. If there were a referendum on changing from an elected mayor, it would be a vote of no confidence in either the mayor or the executive serving with the mayor. We are on delicate ground, to say the least.
	Say that such a referendum, which would presumably be the result of an appeal to the Minister, produced a negative result and the authority were required to change its executive arrangements. As that would in effect be a vote of no confidence by the people who put the elected mayor in place, the Bill could produce an awkward situation. If such a thing happened, the mayor would remain until the end of his term of office--which might be two years away or more. That would not be satisfactory, so our Amendment No. 195 would require an elected mayor, after such a referendum, to retire after the council's next annual meeting--which seems a reasonable way of proceeding in the circumstances. Amendment No. 243 flows automatically.
	Any local authority that found itself in the situation that I have described would have considerable difficulty understanding why the system that it had voted against had to continue so long. I hope that the Minister will look at that matter with care. The Bill is not satisfactorily drafted and if the Minister thinks about it seriously, he would not regard it as completely satisfactory either.

Lord Whitty: Amendments Nos. 174 to 176 provide for the Secretary of State to give directions on certain aspects of the preparation and content of proposals drawn up by local authorities. They will allow us to be more specific about the key elements included and permit the Secretary of State to specify the level of detail that the executive arrangements should include. That is necessary to ensure that authorities adopt constitutions that genuinely reflect the views of local people on how future relationships should be structured.
	Amendment No. 178 provides that when an authority sends proposals to the Secretary of State, they should be accompanied by an account of how the consultation had been conducted in drawing up the proposals and the outcome of the consultations. The Secretary of State, in noting proposals, would need to be assured that adequate consultation had taken place with the electorate.
	Amendment No. 173A from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, deals with consultation with council officers. We expect local authorities to engage in proper consultation with their officers and the trade unions representing them. That is good practice, particularly when faced with significant changes in the way the council conducts its business. It is important that councils involve their employees, particularly senior employees, in reaching decisions as a matter of general involvement of their staff. We have detailed guidance suggesting that they do just that. Clause 18 will ensure that consultation is with those who will be governed by the local authority in future. Council employees are in a different category, unless they also happen to be electors in the authority's area. We do not believe that we should statutorily lay down an equivalent industrial relations duty to the constitutional duty to consult local electors on how the new structure should be introduced. By the time the proposals are put to the electorate, it is unlikely that they will be a surprise to council officers--who should already have been involved.
	Amendment No. 178 provides a new power for the Secretary of State to specify a deadline by which all authorities or authorities of a particular type must submit proposals. I hope that that reserve power will be used infrequently or not at all, but it is necessary to emphasise that we require all authorities to assess which executive structures they wish to recommend to their electorate and to consult them. We will use that power only if a significant number of authorities do not work actively to observe the timetable.
	Amendment No. 179 inserts a new clause after Clause 18. There is nothing mysterious about that new clause, which simply plugs a small gap in the Bill so that authorities that propose a form of executive that does not require a referendum cannot delay its implementation beyond the originally proposed timetable. It provides a more useful definition of "executive" for which a referendum is required. Amendments Nos. 180, 181, 182 and 187 are minor.
	We have brought forward substantive Amendments Nos. 182 and 187 in particular as a direct response to the recommendation of the Joint Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, which considered a draft of the legislation. That committee recommended more clarity for local authorities and the local electorate about the options available following a referendum defeat. The amendments provide that clarity and will require a local authority proposing a form of executive for which a referendum is required to produce an outline fallback position before sending the main proposals to the Secretary of State before the referendum. Outline fallback proposals should give a clear indication of the arrangements that the local authority proposes to introduce and the timetable, subject to consultation. Similar provisions have been included for referendums following, for example, a petition or direction under Clause 23 in the draft Local Government (Petitions and Referendums) Regulations which we have made available to the Committee.
	Amendment No. 197 also deals with fall-back provisions. The new clause would allow the Secretary of State to specify arrangements for the discharge of functions which do not involve an executive, but which the Secretary of State thinks are likely to ensure that decisions are taken in an efficient and accountable manner. These arrangements must be--as has been remarked upon earlier in Committee--significantly different from current arrangements. They must be significantly different because they must not be precisely the same as those considered at earlier stages. That will ensure that a council could not continue with the traditional committee structure, but provides a wider range of options to councils in the event that, having gone through the assessment of the structures provided by the Bill, the electorate rejects proposals for an elected mayor in a referendum.
	Perhaps I may make one point absolutely clear in this context. Alternative arrangements under this clause will be available only as fall-back arrangements. Local authorities will not be able to adopt those alternatives as proposals they positively put to a referendum. Moreover, it is the view of the Government that it is unlikely that arrangements without a separate executive can significantly enhance the efficiency, transparency and accountability which form the objectives of the Bill. We therefore believe that there are unlikely to be many--if any--circumstances where it would be right to provide for alternative arrangements under this new clause. However, we wish to cover this eventuality in order not to exclude possible innovative structures in the event of the preferred option being rejected in a referendum.
	If an authority adopts alternative arrangements following a referendum defeat, then the new clause in Amendment No. 198 provides for the adoption and operation of those fall-back arrangements. This new clause also allows the Secretary of State to make regulations enabling local authorities to alter the alternative arrangements they have in place or to move from them to executive arrangements.
	For those authorities operating executive arrangements, Amendment No. 196 introduces a new clause in place of the original Clause 21. That clause deals with changing or moving to different executive arrangements. This substitute clause does away with the rather complex provisions of the original clause and provides instead for a regulation-making power. That will enable the Secretary of State to make comprehensive regulations.
	Amendment No. 252 makes a minor amendment to the power to make regulations regarding the conduct of referendums. Amendment No. 253 makes another minor amendment to this power so that it is clear that the regulations can provide for publicity material about what would happen if a referendum is lost.
	That concludes my rundown of government amendments. Because the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has already moved his substantive amendments, it would be courteous for me to reply to him at this stage, although there may be points that other noble Lords wish to raise in the debate. I am afraid that I must oppose both amendments. The Government do not believe, as would be required by Amendment No. 195, that it is right for a council which is in the process of operating arrangements with an elected mayor to be able to alter to a form of executive arrangements without an elected mayor before the end of the term of office for the mayor.
	The noble Lord advanced arguments as to why that should be allowable or possibly mandatory, but in all other circumstances, except in those cases where--without wishing to go over old ground--other administrations have terminated the existence of authorities, it has normally been the case that the current term of office would remain in place until any change to the status of the authority came into effect. It would therefore be expected that when a mayor was elected, that mayor would be elected in the belief that he or she would serve a full term of office. Even though alternative proposals may have been advanced within that term of office, it is reasonable for both the authority and the electorate to presume that the term of office of the mayor would be concluded. For that reason, we would not wish to see new arrangements being brought into force before the end of that term. I shall not be able to accept the amendments of the noble Lord and I hope that he will not press them.
	I may need to return to certain other points, but I hope that noble Lords will take into account what I have said.

Lord Harrison: In rising to contribute to the debate introduced by Amendment No. 173, perhaps I may take this opportunity to declare an interest. For almost a decade I was a member of Cheshire County Council. I can well remember that when I first joined the council I was told about the good old days when all the business on council day was concluded by lunchtime and everyone then went off for a jolly good meal. However, in my years as a member, the reverse took place. Great efficiency was shown by the introduction of an early lunch, but not much in the way of accountability or transparency. That was because there seemed to be a proliferation of county council committees of one kind or another in which we dealt in hesitation, deviation and repetition of the council's business. While we certainly had accountability and transparency, I am not sure that we were always guided by efficiency. Indeed I learnt well the longueurs of local government during those nine years, longueurs that I know will never be repeated in this House.
	I support very much the Government's approach in saying that no change is not an option in the Bill. The proposed change of creating a divide by introducing an executive and having that mirrored by scrutiny committees has been attacked from all sides. However, perhaps I may put one reflection to the Committee. The notion that the role of a scrutineer is in some way demeaning is, I believe, wrong. After all, is not the larger purpose of much of the work of your Lordships' House in the way of scrutiny? None of us feels demeaned by performing that duty.
	I am pleased that the Bill states decisively that no change is not an option and that when that happens there should be a speedy application of the new constitutions in local government. Later amendments moved by my noble friend give effect to that. May and June 2002 are the dates given for when the changes should happen. That will also be around the time that the euro--the single currency--will appear in notes and coins. That in itself will have--although I shall whisper this--implications for local government.
	Amendments Nos. 174 and 176 specify more precisely the areas for consultation when the proposals are developed. That is right and proper. I listened carefully to the proposals of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on officers and in other areas on consultation. I believe that the heart of the noble Baroness is in the right place on this issue, but as regards officers--anyone who has had experience of local government will know this--it is absolutely essential that relationships between members and officers are of the best in terms of sharing information on the various ways forward. The idea of needing legislation to enable this to happen would serve only to cover a deficiency because such close co-operation and contact should already be in place.
	I believe that some of the other amendments which are to be moved, including those of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, are covered by some of the amendments tabled by the Minister, are superfluous or suggest a second referendum in terms of consultation, which I am not sure is a purposeful way forward.
	I move to the question of the referendum being binding. As it is a point which may not otherwise arise, I should like to make it. It is important to state that any referendum result is binding on the local authority. There is no greater way to induce cynicism among the electorate than to fail to move forward and oblige the result of a referendum to be put in place.
	Perhaps I may ask the Minister about fall-back. I am pleased to see that the government amendments to Clause 19 clearly set out the options available to councils after a referendum defeat. The Government's response to the Joint Committee and the draft guidance each mention that the fall-back position needs approval by the Secretary of State. However, I cannot find any such provision in the government amendments, and I ask my noble friend to comment.
	Finally, I believe that it is right to make clearer to the public what we suggest in terms of fall-back. In a sense, the first-line proposals, complemented by the fall-back position as sketched in outline, offer choice to the electorate in knowing that there is a fall-back position. Secondly, although we talk in terms of an outline fall-back position, the amendments suggested by the Minister impose on the authority a clear indication of what is proposed and also the timetable. Those are all appropriate amendments to the Bill. In conclusion, fall-back is not an excuse for local authorities to "fall out" of the responsibility which they bear to a modern electorate.

Baroness Hamwee: The Minister commented on my Amendments Nos. 173A and 178A, describing them as some kind of industrial relations duty. I did not propose the amendments in that sense but simply sought to make the point that I believe that officers will have a real contribution to make to the likely operational success of whatever proposals are put before an electorate. Of course, the best authorities may well have been closely involved in the proposals. However, we are seeking to provide not only for the best authorities.
	I turn to the other amendments in my name. Amendment No. 182A asks: what if? Clause 18 requires proposals to be drawn up to a timetable. Clause 20 requires the resolution of a local authority to operate executive arrangements. Amendment No. 182A asks: what if there is no such resolution; for example, because control of the authority has changed or some members have changed their minds?
	Amendment No. 183 asks (at least, between the lines) how in the real world a local authority can consult on alternative proposals for its preferred version at the same time as the referendum. If a local authority were to vote in a referendum against the proposals, it would appear that one was picking one arrangement. However, it may be that the electorate likes neither the proposal nor the fall-back arrangement which is on offer. I confess that I have some difficulty in envisaging how such a referendum, as currently proposed by the Government, would operate.
	Amendment No. 198 pursues the point further by proposing that a local authority may not implement detailed fall-back arrangements until it has held a referendum on those arrangements. As I said, that those arrangements were known in outline at the time of a referendum on whether or not there should be a mayor does not seem to me to amount to approval of the fall-back arrangements.
	I turn to the amendments which I have tabled to the Minister's Amendment No. 196. Amendment No. 196A is consequential to Amendment No. 196C. Amendment No. 196B seeks to leave out subsection (2)(b) of the proposed new clause which requires the consent of an elected mayor to the operation of different arrangements. I question whether it is appropriate to require a referendum to create the post of mayor and then put the individual who is elected in a kind of self-perpetuating position; that is, whoever is in post as mayor must give consent to the introduction of different arrangements. Amendment No. 196C, which aims to add another provision at the end of the clause, would permit a move to non-executive arrangements. I know the Minister's answer to that point.
	I turn to Amendment No. 198A. The Minister's Amendment No. 198 provides at subsection (3) that a local authority which passes a resolution to operate alternative arrangements subsequently may not cease to operate those arrangements. I propose the amendment because I want to ask: why not?

Lord Whitty: I shall endeavour to answer those points. First, in response to my noble friend Lord Harrison, I agree completely with what he said. However, I must point out, as does my noble friend Lord McIntosh from the Dispatch Box, that my agreement with my noble friend Lord Harrison does not imply any change in the Government's position to the euro.
	With regard to the more relevant aspects of his contribution, I agree absolutely about the reference to referendums being binding. The legislation should be clear that they are binding and that point is currently covered in a combination of the Bill and the guidance. Clause 19 deals with the point. I believe that it provides the right balance. However, if there is any doubt, we shall look at the matter again.
	In relation to the question which my noble friend raised on the fall-back position and clearance of that with the Secretary of State, clearly it is important that we identify at what point the Secretary of State approves. My noble friend is quite right. I am glad that he has drawn our attention to that point and to the slight inconsistency which exists between the guidance and the White Paper and the submission to the Joint Committee. We are still considering what is the best process for the prior approval of the outline fall-back proposals which are not otherwise provided for. However, we are clear that the fall-back proposals must not include the status quo. That applies also to a number of the amendments to my amendments, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is addressing. I assure my noble friend Lord Harrison that we shall return to the matter if we feel we need to at a later stage, making sure that we clarify what is the Secretary of State's role in those circumstances.
	I shall now deal with the noble Baroness's amendments to my amendments. She has proposed Amendment No. 188 which appears to seek a requirement for a second referendum before an authority can implement detailed fall-back proposals. That is likely to increase rather than decrease the uncertainty. The Joint Committee asked us to try to increase the certainty in that regard. Therefore, we wanted to make sure that the government amendments are agreed to because they make clearer what is being put to the electorate.
	Amendments Nos. 182A, 196A and 196B seek seriously to modify the principle that the status quo cannot be maintained. Amendment No. 182A seeks to provide a way for the local authority to get round the fact that the status quo is not an option. It would allow local authorities to implement their proposals by not passing a resolution under Clause 20 and they would not therefore be required to alter to an executive-based structure. Clause 19 makes it clear that in all circumstances a referendum would be binding and if the referendum supported the proposals for an executive arrangement, the authority must implement that. If not, it must implement the fall-back. All of that would require change.
	Amendments Nos. 196A and 196C seek to allow the Secretary of State to allow local authorities to abandon executive arrangements in favour of some other arrangements. Again, I presume that that includes the status quo or something like it. The Government believe that the executive arrangements are the best way to ensure the objectives of the Bill. Therefore, we do not believe it is right that a council which has adopted executive arrangements--which if they involve an elected mayor would have been approved by a referendum--should be able to abandon those arrangements and implement arrangements which do not provide for a separate executive. Therefore, we do not believe that that fall-back provision should be provided in the terms of the amendment.
	Amendment No. 198A in the name of the noble Baroness seeks to allow the Secretary of State to enable local authorities to abandon alternative arrangements in favour of some other arrangements, again reintroducing the possibility of the status quo. For our part, that is not an option. That is why we have proposed that an authority operating alternative arrangements should be able to cease operating those arrangements only if it implements other executive arrangements in their place.
	Amendment No. 196B seeks to prevent regulations which require the consent of the elected mayor if all executive arrangements which involve an elected mayor can be changed. I offer two reassurances in that regard. First, the Government do not propose that the mayor's consent would be required to change executive arrangements which relate only to overview and scrutiny arrangements. Secondly, we do not propose that the mayor's consent should be required to change from an executive arrangement involving an elected mayor to some other arrangement. That would have to be the subject of a referendum and the mayor should not and would not be allowed to veto the will of the people expressed through a referendum.
	But we believe that it is not right for the council to be able to change the executive arrangements without the mayor's consent; for example, by deciding that some functions over which it has a choice and which are not mandatorily required to be the function of the executive by the Bill would no longer be executive functions. In that case, the mayor would have been elected to deliver a programme which might include those functions and if the council took them away from him, it would be able to undermine that programme. That would be undemocratic in a sense and, therefore, we should not wish to provide explicitly for that situation.
	I hope that the Committee have followed my concerns about the amendments to the amendments even if they have forgotten what the original government amendment was intended to achieve.
	As regards the first substantive amendment, I want to make it clear that when I referred to industrial relations duties in terms of consultation with staff I was in no way disparaging that. Industrial relations duties are of the very highest order. But they are not duties which should be provided in the constitutional section of this Bill which deals with the responsibilities of the council to its electorate.
	With that explanation of the Government's view, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendments.

Baroness Hamwee: Of course, I accept what the Minister said about relationships with staff.
	This debate has left me with a very big question mark about what alternatives are on offer when a referendum is called. I shall certainly want to reflect on that because it seems to me that the Bill which the Government are promoting is so narrow in its prescriptions that the referendum may be pretty much a sham because there will be so little flexibility and option on which the electorate can express a view.
	Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 173A.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 174 to 176:
	Page 9, line 21, at end insert (", and
	(b) must comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State").
	Page 9, line 23, at beginning insert ("such").
	Page 9, line 23, leave out from ("arrangements") to end of line 26 and insert ("as the Secretary of State may direct").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 177 not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 178:
	Page 9, line 30, leave out subsection (5) and insert--
	("(5) A copy of proposals under this section which is sent to the Secretary of State must be accompanied by a statement which describes--
	(a) the steps which the authority took to consult local government electors, and other interested persons, in the authority's area, and
	(b) the outcome of that consultation and the extent to which that outcome is reflected in the proposals.
	(6) The Secretary of State may by order specify a date by which every local authority, or every local authority falling within any description of authority specified in the order, must comply with this section.").

Lord Whitty: I beg to move.

[Amendment No. 178A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 178, not moved.]
	On Question, Amendment No. 178 agreed to.
	Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 179:
	After Clause 18, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:PROPOSALS NOT REQUIRING REFERENDUM
	(".--(1) Where a local authority's proposals under section 18 do not involve a form of executive for which a referendum is required, the authority must implement the proposals in accordance with the timetable included in the proposals.
	(2) Any reference in this Part to a form of executive for which a referendum is required is a reference to--
	(a) a mayor and cabinet executive,
	(b) a mayor and council manager executive, or
	(c) a form of executive prescribed in regulations under section 10(5) which is expressed in those regulations to be a form of executive for which a referendum is required.").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 19 [Referendum in case of proposals involving elected mayor]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 180 and 181:
	Page 9, line 32, leave out ("an") and insert ("a form of").
	Page 9, line 33, leave out ("which includes an elected mayor") and insert ("for which a referendum is required").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 182:
	Page 9, line 34, at end insert (", and
	(b) must draw up and send to the Secretary of State an outline of the fall-back proposals (referred to in this section as outline fall-back proposals) that they intend to implement if the proposals under section 18 are rejected in a referendum.
	(1A) Fall-back proposals are proposals--
	(a) for the operation of executive arrangements which do not involve a form of executive for which a referendum is required, or
	(b) for the operation of alternative arrangements (within the meaning of section (Alternative arrangements)).
	(1B) In drawing up outline fall-back proposals, a local authority must take reasonable steps to consult local government electors, and other interested persons, in the authority's area.
	(1C) Outline fall-back proposals must include a timetable with respect to the implementation of detailed fall-back proposals which are based on the outline fall-back proposals in the event that the proposals under section 18 are rejected in a referendum.
	(1D) A local authority must send a copy of their outline fall-back proposals to the Secretary of State at the same time that a copy of the proposals under section 18 is sent to him.
	(1E) A local authority may not hold a referendum under this section before the end of the period of two months beginning with the date on which a copy of the proposals under section 18 is sent to the Secretary of State.").

Lord Whitty: I beg to move.

[Amendments Nos. 182A and 183, as amendments to Amendment No. 182, not moved.]
	On Question, Amendment No. 182 agreed to.

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 184:
	Page 9, line 34, at end insert--
	("( ) The result of a referendum held under this section shall not be binding on the authority unless more than 40 per cent. of the electorate vote in favour of the change.").

Lord Dixon-Smith: Amendments Nos. 184, 192, 193 and 250 seek to address what should be an extremely important constitutional point; namely, the point at which a vote by an electorate should have the power to force change.
	We can all recall that in the Scottish referendum there was a clear answer which nobody had any problems with. It was not the highest of polls, but it was at least reasonable. However, I would suggest that the Welsh referendum, which produced a much narrower result, was less than satisfactory. It resulted in about 25 per cent of the electorate, or thereabouts, having the power to impose their will on the other 75 per cent. One might think that that is not appropriate.
	The Bill contains the power for referendums to be held in local authority areas to change the constitutional arrangements within such areas. At Second Reading I asked what would happen on a 12 per cent poll if 7 per cent voted one way and only 5 per cent voted the other; should that really be sufficient to force a change as dramatic as would happen under the Bill as it stands?
	It is worse than that. Let us suppose that only 12 electors voted--seven one way and five the other. One may say that that is ridiculous; it is not. That is what we are permitting. That result would be mandatory on the authority. I wonder about that.
	The matter is also dealt with in draft regulations which we did not have when the amendments were tabled. However, they state nothing about voting or the number of votes required to validate a decision by a community. This is perhaps a new departure. However, the regular use of referendums is a new departure in our system. In new Labour we have a new government with many new ideas, and referendums seem to be attractive. They have been used and abused by others in the past. I am not so certain of the matter.
	The other place speaks of itself with pride as being the democratic chamber. It is usually elected on a not unreasonable national turn-out. Sometimes it has been as high as 80 per cent. In some constituencies the figure is much lower. On the basis of such turn-out the other place regards itself as having democratic legitimacy.
	As the noble Baronesses, Lady Farrington and Lady Hamwee will recognise, in the past it has been the wont of the other place to criticise local government. It has been said that with only a 30 per cent poll, sometimes more sometimes less depending on who and where you are, local government has lacked democratic legitimacy. I wonder about that in the context of what we are doing. That has been a constant theme from national governments for the whole of my career since I entered local government. It seems to me that it does not mean that a local authority is invalid in any way simply because it has a low turn-out at the poll. It could be, and, indeed, in law I believe it would be, taken as being the case. It might be argued that because 70 per cent of the electorate did not vote they were satisfied with what was happening and could not be bothered to turn out; I do not know. When I go down that particular road, I am in danger of destroying my own argument.
	The difficulty we face is that there is no guidance or precision in the matter. I wondered whether the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Bill might come to our aid. I regret that it does not. Clause 95 states:
	"Subject to the following provisions of this section, this Part applies to any referendum held throughout ... (a) the United Kingdom; (b) one or more of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; or (c) any region in England specified in Schedule 1 to the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998."
	There is no help for us there. We therefore fall back on regulations. I thought as a reasonable shot that, if we are seeking to get a community to commit itself to changing the way things are done, it might be not unreasonable to go for a good general election turnout figure and put in a floor at 40 per cent. That is the effect of Amendments Nos. 184, 192, 193 and 250. They state that, for a referendum to be mandatory upon the authority, half of a good general election turnout should vote in favour. Some may think that that is unreasonably ambitious; I do not.
	I look forward with great interest to the Minister's reply. If he is prepared to make concessions which go a considerable way in the direction I have indicated, I may finish up a happy man. However, from the pleasant smile I see on his face I suspect that he is not intending to move as far as I would want him to. I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham: Amendments Nos. 220 and 235 stand in my name and are there to support my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith in his argument about referendums. I have taken a rather more jaundiced view of turn-out than he has, particularly in relation to local government. However, that does not undermine the argument he has put forward. I am happy to acknowledge his argument that it should be 40 per cent of a general election turn-out rather than 40 per cent of a local government turn-out.
	Through various pieces of legislation which the Government propose, we are desperately trying to engender in the electorate enormous enthusiasm for taking part in elections. Perhaps it is cynicism on my part but, for a number of reasons, I do not believe that the electorate will want to come rushing out to take part in referendums. The most salient is that it is extraordinarily difficult to get across to people's consciousness a one-issue matter, such as this. People like local government when it works and do not like it when it does not. For anything in between they are usually happy to stay at home. I do not believe there is anything in the Bill or in what has happened in the past that will shake that up.
	However, if we are putting to them a one-issue matter, it is broader than an election manifesto which covers an enormous number of matters and is just a party vote. To ask for a specific answer is quite different to what has happened before. As my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith stated, it is only reasonable for there to be a threshold which underwrites the fact that the local people want what is proposed and are prepared to turn out and vote for it. They are not content to sit at home and let somebody else do it; they are so enthused and excited about the prospect put before them that they will leave their firesides and the television and come out and vote.

Lord Filkin: I understand, to an extent, why noble Lords suggest that there should be a threshold but we must be extremely cautious about going down that route. An obvious first point is that if there were such threshold turnouts before there was legitimacy, there would not be many local authorities with a mandate to govern in their areas.
	Secondly, without labouring the point, many local authorities are resistant to the idea of new forms of political structure. Noble Lords are aware of that from previous discussions. However, the consequence of such a threshold, particularly when we know there is a problem with local democracy and local participation, would be severely to reduce the likelihood of change. That is what is worrying about this proposal. It is in danger of being seen as a covert resistance and defence of the status quo.
	We know that there is a problem with local democracy; that the public are not enormously excited about it. Therefore the idea that the public may be the resurrection mechanism in that regard is potentially flawed. For 25 per cent of the electorate to turn out in such a referendum would be impressive and be a strong vote of interest by them. In fact, it would be a substantially greater vote of interest than that demonstrated in some local authority elections.
	In the summer the Joint Committee considered this matter and did not recommend a threshold for the turn-out. The Government's guidance proposed in the constitution also makes clear that local authorities should attempt to maximise turn-out in terms of their arrangements and the days on which they hold such referendums. There is no good case made to have a threshold. Nevertheless, let us hope that high turn-outs ensue.

Lord Harris of Haringey: I am still comparatively new to the ways of this Chamber but had not realised, until I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that it was customary to speak both for and against an amendment one was moving.
	If the noble Lord's argument was, as I understand it to be, that a low turn-out in a local government election demonstrates that the population of that area is broadly satisfied with the performance of that local authority--I believe that is what he was implying and that that is the situation with which he is familiar in Essex--then surely the same principle applies to a referendum on this sort of matter. I suspect that if the fears and terrors outlined about this possible proposal were as great as some have suggested, people would come out and vote in this referendum. But if they do not feel it matters a great deal or they are broadly happy with what is going on, I suspect that they may not. In that case, imposing an arbitrary limit suggests, as my noble friend Lord Filkin said, that it is a covert means of imposing something about which Members of the Committee opposite are not happy.
	I turn briefly to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. She conjured up an image of people being enthused on matters which come before them in a referendum. I wish people were enthusiastic about matters of local government; that they could become excited about how their local councils organise themselves--we all hold that optimistic hope. But to state that people must be positively enthused as a minimum requirement before there can be change is unrealistic.
	This Bill puts forward a number of hurdles before an elected mayor can be introduced. It is said that there must be a referendum. That is not something which will be lightly entered into by a local authority. Nor is it something that one can automatically assume will go one way or another. I suspect that in any area there will be a comparatively vigorous debate on the subject. It may not enthuse the majority of electors, but those interested will be engaged in that debate.
	The amendment also suggests a significant threshold as a requirement for a referendum. But to introduce an arbitrary hurdle which must be passed before a new system can be introduced is unnecessary. I suspect, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Filkin, that this amendment is really concerned with a distrust of the system first put forward by some Members of the Committee opposite.

Baroness Hamwee: The notion that a low turn-out equates with broad satisfaction left me wondering about my 20 years in local government when, in every election in which I stood, more than 60 per cent of my ward turned out. I had thought that that was some sort of indication of satisfaction; perhaps I should review that view. I hear from behind me that they must have hated me!
	Sadly, I agree about the lack of realism in this amendment. It does not talk about a turn-out; it talks about,
	"40 per cent. of the electorate".
	By definition therefore the turn-out would have to be at least a little higher than that. I take the point that it is not necessarily the end of the argument to say that we are not accustomed to imposing thresholds for any form of election to be valid. But the point cannot be answered in that way.
	The referendum must stand or fall on its own merits. On these Benches we are concerned about the proposals for elected mayors as put forward in the model that the Government are promoting, but we accept that it should be the decision of the local community. To require a given level of the electorate to vote undermines that approach. After all, electors have the right not to vote, sometimes to make a point. Some Members of the Committee may have heard me tell this story before, but it is relevant here; I refer to an occasion in my borough where a spoilt ballot paper was seen to have written up the side of it, inevitably in green ink, "They think I am voting, but I am not".

Lord Whitty: Irrespective of the last unnamed constituent of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, clearly her ward is the epitome of democratic participation in that 60 per cent is, regrettably, higher than almost any area of local authority experience in recent years. We are debating this amendment against the background of low turn-outs in local authority elections for a number of years, and falling.
	I hope that the kind of glee and enthusiasm conjured up by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, will eventually result from these changes in the way in which we are operating local authorities. We can hardly expect it to be there in advance. The kind of thresholds discussed here--whether or not my more conspiracy-theorist colleagues are correct that they are intended as a way of preserving the status quo--would regrettably tend to have that effect were it not for the fact that other provisions prevent local authorities from maintaining the status quo.
	This is an important issue and one that the Government considered carefully. As my noble friend Lord Filkin said, the Joint Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, also considered it carefully. However, broadly for the reasons I outlined and on grounds of practicality, it did not consider it sensible to require a threshold. To be credible, in one sense it would have to be fairly low in relation to actual achieved local authority election turn-outs, but to have a broader political authority it would have to be too high to be achieved. Therefore on grounds of practicality that approach was rejected.
	Grounds of presentation and politics are also involved in this issue. When a situation provides that one can obtain victory in a referendum but that that victory can be snatched away by the fact that the turn-out provision has not been met, the political consequences may be dire. Members of the Committee will recall an earlier referendum in Scotland in the 1970s. The effect of that was detrimental both to the politics of Scotland and the United Kingdom. It has taken 20 years to put that right.
	That is a considerably worse consequence than a consequence which has too low a turn-out and too low a majority. After all, a majority of one is recognised as legitimate. Hopefully, we will achieve a majority substantially greater than that in the new forms of government, but a majority of anything which is then snatched away is bad politics and a bad way of introducing an alternative form of executive structure.
	Therefore, while I accept some of the sentiments presented by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I can give him no comfort on his proposal. The Government would not wish to see this provision written on the face of the Bill and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.

Lord Dixon-Smith: We have had an interesting and useful debate. The point we raised is an important one. Moreover--dare I say it?--it has had the effect of lightening the atmosphere in the Chamber which was becoming somewhat heavy.
	I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Hanham for her support. I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, that nothing in these proposals would have prevented elections. The amendments in this group only talk about referendums, which are a novel introduction into the political proceedings of this country; an introduction about which there is still a great deal of interest and, indeed, disagreement.
	The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, talked about people voting if they are affected. If people knew that a floor had been set, they might--if, in fact, they were enthused--be persuaded to turn out and vote in order to beat that floor. I gather from the noble Lord's remarks that he suspects that people would be singularly bored by the whole business and that, therefore, we would actually be putting through proposals which lacked the support of the community.
	I hear what the Minister says about the dangers of winning a referendum but then being cut off by a threshold. However, I do not think that that is a matter we should necessarily accept. I certainly do not accept it overall. But I would accept that risk rather than the risk that is also present in the Bill of seven votes to five carrying a community comprising several hundred thousand people. That is equally possible and I do not accept that it is valid.
	I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on the turnout in her ward when she was in elective office. That was a magnificent result. Indeed, I wish all other communities were performing as well. As the Minister said, it is immensely regrettable that that is not the case. I do not apologise for bringing forward this issue and I do not feel inclined to withdraw my amendment. A little exercise will do us all good; indeed, a democratic vote in what is called an "undemocratic" Chamber would be of interest to us all. I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 184) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 141.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 185:
	Page 9, line 34, at end insert--
	("( ) Before any referendum is held under this section, the question to be asked in the referendum shall be referred to the Electoral Commission for their determination.").

Lord Dixon-Smith: Amendments Nos. 185, 194 and 251 in this group can be dealt with quickly. They were all tabled before we had the regulations and guidance which have subsequently appeared. If the Minister can give me an assurance that the draft question which appears in the draft regulations will not be altered and will be the question that is used in local referendums, we need pursue this matter no further. I look forward to hearing his comments. I hope that he will give me that assurance. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: I can give the noble Lord a quick response. I was hoping that Members of the Committee had reached the provision at page 159 of the draft regulations. I am glad that the noble Lord has done so. It is subject to the same consultation as the other provisions in the document. If any Members of the Committee, or others, have views on that matter, we shall take them into account. Once the final version of the regulations is decided, there will be no variation on the question that is to be asked. At a later stage we may involve the electoral commission, when that body comes into being. It will not come into being until we progress further with local authorities in considering some of the options under this Bill. I refer in this connection to an amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which we have not yet discussed. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will recognise that we have this matter in hand.

Baroness Hamwee: I have an amendment in this group. I am happy to acknowledge that the Government have the matter in hand.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful for the Minister's reply. We shall have to consider the outcome of the regulations' stately progress. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 186:
	Page 9, line 36, after first ("proposals") insert ("under section 18").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 187:
	Page 9, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 18 on page 10 and insert ("under section 18, the authority--
	(a) may not implement those proposals,
	(b) must draw up detailed fall-back proposals which are based on the outline fall-back proposals, and
	(c) must send a copy of the detailed fall-back proposals to the Secretary of State.
	( ) In drawing up outline fall-back proposals or detailed fall-back proposals under this section, a local authority must comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State.
	( ) Outline fall-back proposals and detailed fall-back proposals must include such details of the executive arrangements or alternative arrangements to which they relate as the Secretary of State may direct.
	( ) Subsections (2)(b), (3)(a) and (4)(c) of section 18 are to apply to detailed fall-back proposals involving executive arrangements as they apply to proposals under that section.
	( ) Subsections (3)(a) and (4)(c) of that section are to apply to detailed fall-back proposals involving alternative arrangements as they apply to proposals under that section.
	( ) A local authority must implement detailed fall-back proposals in accordance with the timetable mentioned in subsection (1C).").
	[Amendment No. 188, as an amendment to Amendment No. 187, not moved.]
	On Question, Amendment No. 187 agreed to.
	Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 20 [Operation of, and publicity for, executive arrangements]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 189:
	Page 10, line 35, at end insert (", and
	(v) specifies the address of their principal office").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 190 and 191 not moved.]
	Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 21 [Revised executive arrangements]:
	[Amendments Nos. 192 to 195 not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 196:
	Leave out Clause 21 and insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:OPERATION OF DIFFERENT EXECUTIVE ARRANGEMENTS
	(".--(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for or in connection with enabling a local authority which is operating executive arrangements ("the existing arrangements") to operate executive arrangements ("the different arrangements") which differ from the existing arrangements in any respect.
	(2) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (1) includes provision--
	(a) which applies or reproduces (with or without modifications) any provisions of section 18, (Proposals not requiring referendum), 19 or 20,
	(b) for or in connection with requiring the consent of an elected mayor under the existing arrangements to the operation of the different arrangements,
	(c) with respect to changes to the existing arrangements as a result of changes to the functions which are the responsibility of an executive.
	(3) Nothing in subsection (2) affects the generality of the power under subsection (1).").
	[Amendments Nos. 196A to 196C, as amendments to Amendment No. 196, not moved.]
	On Question, Amendment No. 196 agreed to.
	Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 197:
	After Clause 21, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:ALTERNATIVE ARRANGEMENTS
	(".--(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify arrangements by a local authority with respect to the discharge of their functions (referred to in this Part as alternative arrangements) which are arrangements of a type--
	(a) which the Secretary of State considers are likely to ensure that decisions of the authority are taken in an efficient and accountable way, and
	(b) which are not permitted by or under section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 or sections 15 to 17 of, and Schedule 1 to, the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.
	(2) The arrangements which may be specified by regulations under this section include--
	(a) arrangements for the discharge of functions of a local authority by individual members of the authority or by individual members of any committee or sub-committee of the authority,
	(b) arrangements for the appointment of committees or sub-committees of a local authority the membership of which is determined otherwise than in accordance with the political balance requirements,
	(c) arrangements for the appointment of committees or sub-committees of a local authority to review or scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken, in connection with the discharge of functions of the authority.
	(3) Regulations under this section may make provision for the purpose of determining the functions of a local authority which may, may not or must be the subject of alternative arrangements of any particular type.
	(4) Nothing in subsection (2) or (3) affects the generality of the power under subsection (1).").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 198:
	After Clause 21 insert the following new Clause--
	:TITLE3:OPERATION OF ALTERNATIVE ARRANGEMENTS
	(".--(1) A resolution of a local authority is required in order for the authority to operate alternative arrangements.
	(2) Subsection (2) of section 20 is to apply for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that section.
	(3) A local authority which pass a resolution under this section to operate alternative arrangements may not at any subsequent time cease to operate those arrangements unless, by virtue of any provision made under subsection (5) or section 22, 23 or (Power to require referendum), the authority operate executive arrangements in place of those arrangements.
	(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for or in connection with enabling a local authority which is operating alternative arrangements to alter those arrangements in such ways as may be permitted by the regulations.
	(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for or in connection with enabling a local authority which is operating alternative arrangements to operate executive arrangements in place of the alternative arrangements.
	(6) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (5) includes provision which applies or reproduces (with or without modifications) any provisions of section 18, (Proposals not requiring referendum), 19 or 20.
	(7) Nothing in subsection (6) affects the generality of the power under subsection (5).").
	[Amendment No. 198A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 198, not moved.]
	On Question, Amendment No. 198 agreed to.
	Clause 22 [Referendum following petition]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 199:
	Page 12, line 11, at end insert ("for or in connection with").

Lord Whitty: In moving Amendment No. 199, I shall speak also to the amendments grouped with it.
	Amendments Nos. 199 to 217 make a number of changes to Clause 22, which deals with petitions for referendums. Most of these are minor drafting amendments. Amendments Nos. 200, 206, 216 and 217 alter the way the provisions work, but not their overall effect.
	The main reason for changing these provisions is because the original drafting did not resolve the issue of the basis on which the figure for the percentage of local electors would be calculated in respect of any particular petition. This could lead to problems, particularly where the number of electors changes over the period during which a petition is collected. These amendments therefore extend slightly the scope of the regulation-making power to enable this to be much more precise.
	The proposed Local Government (Constitutions) (Petitions and Referendums) Regulations and Chapter 3 of the draft guidance illustrate how we are proposing to use this power. In particular--contrary to recent reports in the press--the Government do not intend to set the threshold for a petition at any level lower than 5 per cent of the local electorate.
	Amendment No. 216 introduces a new provision which would allow the Secretary of State to take action in default where a local authority fails to act on a petition. This is necessary to ensure that in the event of a local authority ignoring a bona fide petition, the petitioners do not have to resort to the courts to force the local authority into action. A similar provision is made in Clause 23 by Amendment No. 233. Amendments Nos. 230 to 232 and 234 are minor drafting amendments.
	Amendment No. 236 introduces a new power which will enable the Secretary of State to require all local authorities, or all authorities of a particular description, to hold a referendum on a particular form of executive. The Government believe that it might be appropriate for local people in a number of council areas to be able, in a co-ordinated way, to express through referendums their support for new executive arrangements for their council. This new power is necessary should the Government wish to give effect to such a policy. But it will remain a choice for local people whether or not they wish to support a particular form of executive proposed in this way. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: I have tabled a number of amendments as amendments to government amendments. Going at them backwards--because why not--Amendment No. 236A seeks to include a reference to the Electoral Commission. I hope that the Minister can again assure the Committee that the Government, to use his words, "have the matter in hand".
	Amendments Nos. 206A and 206B are amendments to the Minister's amendments in regard to the calculation of what is required for a petition. I understand the difficulties that the Government have now realised there will be in calculating percentages; in working out the date on which the electoral register will apply; and how to set about a fair approach to the matter. None the less, I am concerned about the provision for a minimum number rather than for a percentage. A percentage of a local authority's electorate will be different from the numerical answer, obviously depending on the size of the electorate. I am unclear as to how the fairness and equality of the Government's approach in setting a minimum number for each local authority's area can be assessed. Will the Government publish a number for each area? If so, how will it be possible to compare number by number? Does it mean that there will be different percentages for each area?
	My first amendment, Amendment No. 206A, seeks to deal with the issue of percentages rather than numbers; and my second amendment, Amendment No. 206B, suggests that there should be a standard minimum; otherwise, if different numbers apply in different local authority areas, there could very easily be justified allegations of partial or preferential treatment of particular authorities.
	In regard to Amendments Nos. 199 and 200, I regret that I did not quite hear what the Minister said about the 5 per cent threshold and the comments that had been made in the press. It seems to me that these amendments will mean that there will be no statutory minimum. While 5 per cent may not be the right figure, I confess to a concern that there is no percentage mentioned on the face of the Bill as a threshold for such a petition. It is an important matter which should be dealt with on the face of the Bill.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I have tabled Amendments Nos. 201, 218 and 223 in this group. Amendments Nos. 201 and 223 seek to permit referendums on whether to cease to operate executive arrangements where a community decided that what was going on was not working in its best interests. One might consider that this goes against the spirit of the Bill, but the spirit of the Bill is to dictate that a particular conclusion should be the outcome. I do not think that that is reasonable; I think that communities ought to be able to decide what their administrative arrangements should be. That is my interpretation of the European Charter of Local Self Government. We have therefore tabled these two amendments to support that case.
	Amendment No. 218 is somewhat different. It is tabled as an amendment to government Amendment No. 217. The Bill as originally drafted required 5 per cent of the electorate to make a petition in order to force a change in the system if a local community was not satisfied with either its executive arrangements or any other arrangements and wanted to bring about a change to something different--particularly if it was moving from what one might call a cabinet style of local government management to an elected mayor style of local government management. If we were in a situation down the road where a cabinet style had been operating and the community decided that it wanted to have an elected mayor, the Bill stated in its original form that 5 per cent of the electorate would be required.
	Amendment No. 217 changes that very fundamentally. It states that the number required may be determined by regulation and shall not exceed 5 per cent. I echo the voice of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that that causes some concern. Not exceeding 5 per cent gives the Minister discretion. I trust his discretion, but I do not trust it all the way down to zero or, shall we say, 1 per cent. My amendment seeks to provide that, while 5 per cent will be the maximum, the minimum may not go below 3 per cent. I do not think that that is unreasonable. A little while ago we had a discussion on floors. It may be that the Minister will repeat his view that the idea of floors is not valid in this case. I think it is valid and that many of the arguments already used today are appropriate.

Baroness Hanham: Amendment No. 219 seeks to do very much what the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, seek to do--that is, to stop the Minister's powers under Clause 22(5), which states:
	"The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsection (1)(a)".
	As has clearly been said, under the government amendments the figure could go down to as low as 1 per cent if the Minister so wished. In some local authorities that would mean that very few people would be required to sign a petition to force a referendum.
	A maximum and a minimum of five would be about right. My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith suggests three. However, we must include a realistic minimum figure, bearing in mind that electorates vary substantially, from a borough of 120,000 to a county council of far more than that. My amendment seeks to support those already tabled and to limit the powers of the Secretary of State to reduce the figure to one that becomes meaningful in that too few people can put forward for a petition.

Lord Filkin: One recognises that the provision for a referendum in order to show public support before a substantial change is made to the system of elected mayors is right. That is a serious test and there must be clear public consent before we change our current system of political governance.
	However, one does not want the test to be so severe that it is never possible to make change and innovation. One is aware of a dilemma because most local authorities are substantially opposed to the idea of elected mayors whereas the public, surprisingly by a majority of two to one, are strongly interested in the idea. That does not automatically prove one side right and the other wrong, but it demonstrates a willingness on the part of the public to experiment.
	When we are in a mode of experimentation, we should not put a specific number on to the face of the Bill. No one knows for certain how the debate will play out in practice. There may be cases for going above or below 5 per cent, although I note that the Government do not intend to go below that threshold. Nevertheless, we may find in five years' time that the debate has substantially changed and that a good case made one way or the other for making a variation commands support across the House.
	Finally, I believe that one should approach the Government's new idea for co-ordinated referendums with an open and positive mind. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, spoke about low turn-outs in such referendums. One way of ensuring a substantial or increased turn-out would be to have a national debate about whether certain areas of England wish to move towards elected mayors. Were such a co-ordinated referendum to take place, each area would still decide for itself whether it wanted change. But the fact that, say, most major cities had the debate simultaneously would guarantee substantial national attention and one hopes informed debate. That would strengthen the likelihood of a high turn-out.

Lord Whitty: I note my noble friend's recommendations in relation to the timing of the referendums, but that is not a matter for this Bill. In regard to the 5 per cent threshold, I indicated that we would not put a non-5 per cent figure on the face of the Bill. However, in response to the report of the Joint Committee the Government undertook to keep the position of thresholds under review. Since tabling our amendment, it has become clear that it does not deliver what we said in response to the Joint Committee in that it no longer indicates the flexibility that we indicated we wanted so that the threshold could be changed above or below the 5 per cent.
	The amendment deals with a number of issues, but it does not deal with that issue. Therefore, with the indulgence of the Committee, we may need to return to that aspect and bring forward another minor amendment at the Report stage which includes the additional flexibility both for the Secretary of State in England and for the National Assembly in Wales. I hope that the Committee will recognise that this is not quite the end of the story in terms of the amendments.
	As regards other amendments, I am afraid that we cannot accept Amendments Nos. 201 and 223 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. We would not accept that it should be possible for local people to force a referendum to abandon arrangements with an elected mayor through a petition. Nor do we believe that the Secretary of State should have the power to do so. In either situation, local people will relatively recently twice have approved the arrangements for an elected mayor: first, through arrangements themselves for a referendum and, secondly, through the mayor's own mandate for his or her election. That does not mean that local people cannot petition the council for such a referendum, but it would be up to the local authority to decide whether it acted on the referendum in those circumstances. I would urge the noble Lord to withdraw those two amendments.
	In relation to Amendments Nos. 206A and 206B tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I can reassure the Committee that the Government have no intention of setting a petitions threshold at any given time that differs between authority to authority. I understand that to be the main intention behind the amendment, but we do not believe that it achieves that. However, we shall examine it because that is our intention, too.
	Despite arguments that have been made, we do not believe it sensible to define a petition threshold by way of an absolute number. The draft regulations and guidance we published make clear that we propose a percentage threshold. Currently we are thinking of starting at the 5 per cent figure, but with the flexibility to which I have referred.
	The flexibility which Amendment No. 206A seeks to remove is necessary. For example, after experience of the petitioning process it may become apparent that in addition to a universal threshold of, say, 5 per cent there should also be a requirement for a minimum number of signatures on a petition from each ward or each part of, say, a shire county. We believe that the noble Baroness's amendment might restrict the enabling power in a way that would preclude us from doing that and I cannot accept that.
	I regret that I must also oppose Amendments Nos. 218 and 219 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. We believe that there needs to be some flexibility. Opinion polls have repeatedly shown that the vast majority of local people favour arrangements for an elected mayor but that most councils do not. If following consultation councils implement arrangements which do not reflect public opinion, there needs to be some way for local people to force their hand. That is where the petitioning process comes in.
	As regards Amendment No. 236A, I can reassure the noble Baroness that we intend to consult the electoral commission, once it is in place, on the regulations. However, as I indicated earlier, we expect to proceed with moves by local authorities in the direction of the new structures before the likely date of the commencement of the commission. We therefore need these powers in this form without requirement to revert to the commission.
	I hope that that explains why, with regret, I cannot take on board any of the Opposition amendments. I commend my amendment to the Committee.

Baroness Hamwee: In connection with the figure of 5 per cent and the Government's desire to achieve flexibility, the Minister recognised that his amendment does not quite achieve that. I shall make my point in the least adversarial way that I can perhaps other than not making it at all. There is a substantial number of government amendments to the Bill and I invite the Minister to withdraw his amendment so that we can see it in its final form at the next stage rather than doing half a job.

Lord Dixon-Smith: What the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, says merits serious consideration. This is a quite complicated Bill. We have had words across the table, so to speak, about both the volume of amendments and the detail of those amendments. I have no doubt that there will be many occasions on many amendments when we shall have to return to that matter. If the Minister could withdraw the existing amendment and return with a better one in the future, it would be most helpful to all of us.

Lord Whitty: Members of the Committee will know that I am usually accommodating in that respect. However, we are talking about a whole raft of provisions relating to the petitioning procedure and the way that it triggers a referendum in only one small respect which relates to future flexibility. I have explained clearly what such a further amendment would do. Therefore, it will come as no surprise at Report stage if I table an amendment to do precisely that. It would not be sensible to withdraw the other provisions on the understanding that I should return with what, in textual terms, would be a relatively minor amendment when I have spelt out already what that amendment would provide. It would need to do so in a form applicable to the National Assembly for Wales, which has raised some concerns on the matter, as well as the Secretary of State for England. The form of the amendment will reflect that accordingly. Apart from that minor complication, everything else before the Committee will stand. I shall therefore resist the request to withdraw at this stage.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: In calling Amendment No. 200, I must say that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 201.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 200:
	Page 12, leave out lines 13 to 19 and insert ("which complies with the provisions of the regulations to hold a referendum, in such circumstances as may be prescribed in the regulations, on whether the authority should operate executive arrangements involving a form of executive for which a referendum is required.").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 201 not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 202 to 205:
	Page 12, line 21, leave out (", in particular,").
	Page 12, line 21, leave out ("as to").
	Page 12, line 22, at beginning insert ("as to").
	Page 12, line 22, leave out ("that a petition is to take") and insert ("and content of petitions (including provision for petitions in electronic form)").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 206:
	Page 12, line 22, at end insert--
	("(aa) as to the minimum number of local government electors for a local authority's area who must support any petition presented to the authority during any period specified in the regulations,
	(ab) for or in connection with requiring the proper officer of a local authority to publish the number of local government electors for the authority's area who must support any petition presented to the authority,
	(ac) as to the way in which local government electors for a local authority's area are to support a petition (including provision enabling local government electors to support petitions by telephone or by electronic means),
	(ad) as to the action which may, may not or must be taken by a local authority in connection with any petition,").

Lord Whitty: I beg to move.

[Amendment Nos. 206A and 206B, as amendments to Amendment No. 206, not moved.]
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 207 to 216:
	Page 12, line 23, at beginning insert ("as to").
	Page 12, line 23, leave out ("given") and insert ("presented").
	Page 12, line 24, at beginning insert ("as to").
	Page 12, line 25, at beginning insert ("as to").
	Page 12, line 26, at beginning insert ("as to").
	Page 12, line 26, leave out ("to") and insert ("which may, may not or must").
	Page 12, line 26, after ("before") insert ("or in connection with").
	Page 12, line 27, at beginning insert ("as to").
	Page 12, line 27, leave out ("to") and insert ("which may, may not or must").
	Page 12, line 27, at end insert (", and
	( ) for or in connection with enabling the Secretary of State, in the event of any failure by a local authority to take any action permitted or required by virtue of the regulations, to take that action").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: In calling Amendment No. 217, I must say that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 219.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 217:
	Page 12, line 28, leave out subsections (3) to (5) and insert--
	("(3) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (2) includes provision which applies or reproduces (with or without modifications) any provisions of sections 18, 19, 20 or (Operation of alternative arrangements).
	(4) The number of local government electors mentioned in subsection (2)(aa) is to be calculated at such times as may be provided by regulations under this section and must not exceed 5 per cent. of the number of local government electors at any of those times.
	(5) Nothing in subsection (2), (3) or (4) affects the generality of the power under subsection (1).").

Lord Whitty: I beg to move.

[Amendment No. 218, as an amendment to Amendment No. 217, not moved.]
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 219 and 220 not moved.]
	Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage on this Bill begin again not before 8.35 p.m. I draw the attention of noble Lords taking part in the dinner hour debate to the inaccuracy in the timing originally given. In order to keep within the time limit, the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, in opening the debate, may speak for 10 minutes. My noble friend Lady Scotland may speak for 12 minutes. Other speakers are allowed nine minutes.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Kosovo

Lord Skidelsky: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the report of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe on human rights in Kosovo.
	My Lords, the occasion of this Unstarred Question is the publication on 6th December 1999 of the report on human rights violations in Kosovo compiled by the OSCE verification mission. The report covers three periods: 1st November 1998 to 21st March 1999; 24th March 1999 to 10th June--that is, the period of bombing; and the post-bombing period until last October. In the first and third periods, monitors were in place on the ground. During the bombing period, the evidence is taken by the OSCE from Serb refugees and expellees. It is by far the most authoritative account of human rights violations in that period.
	Comment on the report by the media was conspicuous by its absence. Publication was noted and a few extracts given from the executive summary. That is particularly unfortunate, since the summary failed to bring out the crucial break in trend--which is something I want to emphasise--in the level of human rights abuses between the pre-bombing period and the bombing period.
	I raise the matter this evening because the factual evidence set out in the report casts serious doubt on the justification for the war consistently given by Her Majesty's Government and by the NATO alliance as a whole. The Government claim that the war was fought to avert an impending humanitarian catastrophe and that it succeeded in its aim. The Prime Minister has used the words "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" to describe what the Serbs were doing before the bombing started. It has been the Government's contention that the latter was the result of a deliberate, long-matured plan by Milosevic to empty Kosovo of its Albanian population. Most people in Britain probably believe some version of that story to this day.
	I do not need to remind your Lordships that truth is the first casualty of war. The OSCE report paints a different and to my mind far more plausible picture of what was going on at the time. It is perfectly true that fears of an impending humanitarian catastrophe were well founded in the summer of 1998. UN aid agencies reported that between 200,000 and 300,000 Albanian Kosovars had been driven from their villages into the hills in the Drenia region along the Albanian border that summer. On 23rd September 1998, Security Council Resolution 1199 demanded an immediate ceasefire and political dialogue, the scaling down of Serbian security forces and the installation of observers to verify compliance. It should be noted that Russia vetoed the use of force to support the resolution, but the NATO council nevertheless endorsed the use of aerial bombardment to do so if necessary.
	Resolution 1199 led to the Milosevic-Holbrooke agreement of 16th October 1998. It provided for a ceasefire, a return to their homes of the displaced Albanian villagers, a scaling back of Serb forces to their pre-1998 levels and the emplacement of 2000 international observers in Kosovo. The observers arrived at the start of November.
	For the first two months everything seemed to be going well. However, a ceasefire takes two to observe, and by the end of December/early January it became apparent that the KLA had used the lull to arm and train. Fighting broke out in the north-east of the province, where the KLA had established positions athwart the supply routes from Serbia to Kosovo. There were also,
	"a number of reactive operations by the Yugoslav/Serb forces against [KLA] infiltration along the Albanian border".
	The observers reported "small scale ambushes" and "individual" atrocities by both sides.
	What triggered off the events which led to NATO's armed intervention was the discovery in mid-January of 45 Albanians, including some children, murdered, mostly at close range, in the village of Racak. Responsibility for that atrocity has never been established. The Serbs claimed that they were killed in fighting and their bodies arranged by the KLA to look like murder. Though that was an isolated event, in a situation otherwise characterised by low-level skirmishing and sporadic atrocities, there is no doubt at all that it had an enormous impact on world opinion. It was assumed that it was part of a systematic campaign of terror by the Yugoslav/Serb forces. As the Rambouillet conference neared breakdown in mid-March of last year, the Serbs started preparing for a war on two fronts--against NATO in front of them and against the KLA behind them. For the first time, OSCE observers were denied access to the frontier areas. The escalation of violence was a direct response to NATO's own build-up.
	The break in trend between the pre-war and war period is captured by the following quotations from the report. I dwell on them because their effect is cumulative. The first quotation:
	"The level of incidents of summary and arbitrary killing escalated dramatically after the OSCE withdrew on 20 March".
	The second quotation:
	"Summary and arbitrary killing became a generalized phenomenon throughout Kosovo with the beginning of the NATO air campaign ... on the night of 24-25 March".
	The third quotation:
	"Indiscriminate attacks on populated areas, sporadic prior to 24 March 1999, became a widespread occurrence after that date".
	The fourth quotation:
	"The loss of life of large numbers of Kosovo Albanian civilians was one of the most characteristic features of the conflict after 24 March".
	The fifth quotation:
	"Once the OSCE ... left on 20 March 1999 and particularly after the start of the NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on 24 March, Serbian police and/or the VJ, often accompanied by paramilitaries, went from village to village and, in the towns, from area to area, threatening and expelling the Kosovan Albanian population".
	My final quotation:
	"Between March and June 1999 the FRY and Serbia forcibly expelled 863,000 Kosovo Albanians from Kosovo".
	The Government want us to believe that this dramatic escalation in the level of violence and scale of expulsions had nothing to do with the withdrawal of the observers and the start of NATO's bombing. What is more they want us to believe that it was only the NATO intervention which stopped it!
	"I have no difficulty in justifying this action",
	wrote the Prime Minister on 16th May.
	"We fought for an end to ethnic cleansing",
	he said on 31st July. What hypocrisy! What is the evidence? There is very little in the report.
	Now, my Lords, for the results. Nothing, of course, can bring back to life the hundreds and perhaps thousands of Albanian Kosovars killed by the Serbs during the period of the NATO bombing and the hundreds and perhaps thousands of Serbs killed by NATO bombs. We can at least claim to have reversed the ethnic cleansing which started after 24th March. Around 700,000 Kosovars have been returned to their homes and live in much greater security than before under the protection of the UN forces. However, under the protection of those same forces, the ethnic cleansing is now done by the other side. In a BBC interview given by the Foreign Secretary on 24th June 1999, Mr Cook said:
	"When we met the leaders of the Albanian community yesterday, including the leader of the KLA, they all said that they want to create a multi-ethnic society, open to all the people of Kosovo and indeed Hashim Thaci, leader of the KLA, did say he appealed to the Serbs to stay. Over two-thirds of them have stayed and some of them are coming back".
	In the lexicon of fatuous pronouncements made by our Foreign Secretary, that surely takes the prize.
	Taking an average of different estimates, it looks as if there are about 70,000 Serbs left out of a pre-bombing population of about 250,000. Milosevic expelled about half of the Albanians under war conditions. Under the eyes of the UN's 50,000 armed troops, about two-thirds of the Serbs have been expelled and many more atrocities have occurred since June.
	Perhaps I may say in conclusion that the last thing in my mind in bringing this report to the attention of the House is to whitewash Milosevic. He has brought untold damage to former Yugoslavia and to his own people in the sole interest of hanging on to power. The sooner he is removed the better. Nor would I want to deny that at some point military intervention might have become right and proper. What I do want to claim is that the reasons given for the intervention, when it occurred and in the form it took, do not stand up to serious scrutiny. I do not myself believe that the avoidance of a humanitarian disaster was uppermost in NATO's mind when it embarked on the diplomacy which made bombing inevitable. I believe that having threatened bombing back in October 1998, NATO's leaders convinced themselves that the credibility of the alliance was at stake if they did not bomb. And here I ask: credibility for what purpose? Perhaps the Minister will give us an answer.
	What I mind above all is the lying. On such a basis no durable settlement for the Balkans can be built. If we live in a world in which our leaders cannot distinguish truth from falsehood, that is a dreadful omen for the future.

Lord Judd: My Lords, my intervention will be brief. I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, for raising this issue. Taken together with his interesting contribution to the recent foreign affairs debate, it is clear that he is posing the kind of fundamentally significant questions which are altogether appropriate for a second Chamber worth having. I also believe that we should put on record our appreciation of the report produced by the OSCE mission in Kosovo. Its findings are sombre, but they are also distressing, particularly the indications that the young are being caught up in the abuse of human rights.
	When I was in Kosovo last August for the Council of Europe I recall looking at the extensive damage in one urban area and finding it difficult to comprehend that this was not the result of aerial or artillery bombardment but had been wrought by the "hands on" activity of ordinary citizens against other ordinary citizens. The emotion involved had clearly been terrible. In a volatile impersonal world, people need the security of identity. We should not deny ethnicity. What matters is to encourage and support in time the leaders within ethnic groups who understand that the future of humanity depends on co-operation with those of other ethnic origins. Not to take that approach is what plays into the hands of opportunist extremists, the ethnic entrepreneurs.
	Also last August, in Montenegro and Serb Yugoslavia, I met the wretched Serb victims of oppression by ethnic Albanians, and, right at the bottom of the pile, I met the Roma refugees in appalling conditions. While, as the OSCE makes plain, numerically the persecution of Serbs and Roma by ethnic Albanians does not begin to be on the same scale as the systematic, state sponsored persecution of ethnic Albanians by the Serbs which preceded it, it is obvious that whatever the military action by NATO achieved, it did not bring atrocities to an end.
	I am convinced that that is why explicit, not implicit, UN authorisation is essential for military intervention. It makes the point that intervention is for universally applicable principles and not partial principles. Or, at least, it makes it even less credible when some try to portray intervention as partial. I believe that, with hindsight, we should accept that the language at the time of the intervention ought to have been more firmly about intervening to uphold universally valid human rights and less open to the interpretation that we were intervening for the ethnic Albanians against the Serbs. That would have given us a far stronger base from which to curb the totally unacceptable and reprehensible--albeit on a smaller scale--excesses by the ethnic Albanians.
	Without political stability, human rights can never be secure. If we are to move forward in Kosovo, there has to be a steady transition from a de facto international colonial presence to genuine self-government. There have to be democratic institutions to which the police and other authorities are accountable. But, as I have argued before, for that to happen effectively time will be essential. The preparation for the elections will be as important as the elections themselves. The context in which they take place will be vital. What happens in the rehabilitation of education will be highly relevant. What happens in the development of genuinely independent media-- the lifeblood of successful democracy--will be indispensable. Election law and administration will be critically important--not least the registration of voters. That raised the whole question of the absent refugees and displaced people. It will be good to hear the Government's thinking on all this. Do they, for example, favour the idea canvassed by some of starting with municipal or local elections as a trial run for more significant major national elections?
	In the meantime, the delay in bringing the external police presence up to the required strength is frankly inexcusable. For all who advocated the action which has led to the international presence, there is surely a moral imperative to will the means to achieve its logical follow-through. Anything less is feeble or, worse, cynical.
	Similarly, it is extraordinary that interim arrangements for the administration of justice are still inadequate. What kind of grotesque reality have we reached if we can mobilise without question the resources needed for bombing but totally fail to generate on the necessary scale the human and financial resources to build the peace? That hardly smacks of the real commitment to human rights and democracy of which the Foreign Secretary spoke so powerfully again last week. If I may be forgiven for concluding on a colloquial note, I believe that, in respect of strengthening the international police presence and the administration of justice, we have to pull our fingers out, and fast.

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, for making it possible.
	I have always been critical of NATO intervention in Kosovo: I suppose that it cannot be called a war because there was never a declaration. Like many of my generation, I remember only too well what continuous aerial bombardment is like. I lived with my parents on the outskirts of London during the war and I have never forgotten it. Seeing news flashes on television of Belgrade burning brought it all back to me vividly. I could practically hear my mother saying, "They've got the London docks again". I have ever since regarded the bombing of urban areas as a means of terrorising a civilian population--indeed, I think that is its main objective, despite what military people may say. I thought last year, when NATO bombing was at its height, that we should not have been doing it, and that remains my view.
	I do not believe that there was no alternative. Rambouillet was presented as an ultimatum--which it was unlikely that any Serbian government would have accepted. Negotiation was still an option; and the UN was marginalised. Opinions are now more frequently being voiced to the effect that military intervention was unlawful. The UN charter gives two grounds for the valid use of force: self-defence or with the sanction of the UN Security Council. Neither applied in the case of the Kosovo operation.
	My noble friends on the Front Bench have repeatedly claimed that the operation was "successful". Well, it depends what the objective was. If the real intention was to create a purely Albanian ethnic state, perhaps it has been successful. But we were told that the aim was to bring about the creation of a state in which all ethnic rights were respected.
	It would also appear that it was the bombing campaign which intensified the ethnic cleansing of Albanians by the Serbs, as some of us maintained at the time. Now that has been replaced by the ethnic cleansing of Serbs, brought about not only by revenge killings by Albanians but also by KLA members who are apparently determined to create an entirely Albanian state. It is not only Serbs who are being forced out but also the Roma people, Jews and even the small Croatian community. The international forces present seem powerless to prevent it. The region remains, and is likely to continue to remain, unsettled.
	What is to be done now? Little information seems to be available as to the numbers of civilian deaths and injuries resulting from the NATO bombing campaign. Albanians were killed as well as Serb civilians. Many Albanians were killed and injured in the convoys which were bombed by mistake by NATO forces. Nothing seems to have been done to help the survivors or to compensate for the lives lost.
	When I have asked about the possibility of compensation--at least for civilians killed and injured as a result of NATO acknowledged mistakes--I have been told that the issue of compensation does not arise because the NATO action in Kosovo was "lawful". So it was lawful, apparently, to use cluster bombs and depleted uranium munitions on civilian areas.
	There is no doubt that the bombing campaign badly damaged the civilian infrastructure, as well as rendering parts of the Danube unnavigable. Questions about this have been asked in the House, and the response has been to blame Milosevic. Apparently he is demanding that sanctions be lifted before access can be granted. I should be grateful to know whether that is still the situation.
	In any event, why are sanctions being continued, since the "conflict" has been won? They seem more likely to strengthen, rather than weaken, the present Yugoslav leadership. It is not surprising that even Serbs with pro-Western sympathies feel that they are victims. The historian Alexei Djilas, the son of the best known dissident ever, made that clear in a recent television interview. Most of those who have studied the situation in the Balkans know that it is immensely complicated and the demonisation of one individual, unpleasant though he may be, does not help us to understand it. Not so very long ago Milosevic was a man with whom Richard Holbrooke could do business. He was needed in order to reach the Dayton accord. I mention that because it is too easy to come to conclusions based on the over-simplifications beloved of the media.
	We were told at the time of the Kosovo venture that it heralded a new approach in international affairs. For the first time in history, oppressive leaders could no longer hide behind the doctrine of national sovereignty. If people were oppressed, they could look to the international community for assistance--perhaps even armed intervention.
	But it is now clear that in the real world, where unfortunately there are many countries where human rights as we understand them are ignored, that is not a practical possibility. Fortunately, the Government now seem to have come to terms with that view. If recent reports are accurate, it would seem that the Government have been reluctant to give guarantees or assurances to the present leadership in Montenegro, should it feel inclined to push harder for complete independence. If that is the government position, it is very sensible.
	Of course, the international community should always be willing to provide humanitarian assistance to those who suffer as a result of such conflicts. And of course the United Nations must be strengthened. I entirely share the view of my noble friend Lord Judd in that respect. That, it seems to me, must be the way forward. In the meantime, in Kosovo it seems that the international community has a continuing task of monitoring and supervising if lawlessness is to be overcome and human rights protected.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, first I thank the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. I do not refer to him as my noble friend in this House since we belong to different parties, but outside this House he is my noble friend. He and I have worked very closely together, not least in Russia, and I greatly admire and respect the work that he has done there and elsewhere in the world. I say that because during this short debate I must strongly disagree with the argument that the noble Lord has put before the House. I believe that the noble Lord is aware that I strongly disagree with him. I extend my courteous apologies to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, who is also a Member of this House whose integrity and honesty I respect. I need to say that because I shall also strongly disagree with her observations.
	I believe that when we look at the reports of OSCE we see a description of man's inhumanity to man on a terrifying scale. In a way, we are looking at sheer evil. As one studies page after page of the first report, which is primarily about the period up until March, and the second report, which deals with the six-month period from March to October, one feels a sense of disgust and outrage at the obscenity of what people have done to one another. But we must recognise that a crucial distinction is to be drawn. It is here that I fundamentally disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. It is clear from the first OSCE report that the attack by the regime of Milosevic on the Kosovar Albanians was, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said in a passing remark, state policy.
	I respond to the quotations of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, with a few extracts from the OSCE report. The noble Lord said that the Kosovar Albanians had been "expelled under war conditions". The OSCE report states:
	"On the part of the Yugoslav and Serbian forces, their intent to apply mass killing as an instrument of terror, coercion or punishment against Kosovo Albanians was already in evidence in 1998",
	which was a whole year before the NATO attack was loosed. It goes on to state:
	"Rape and other forms of sexual violence were applied sometimes as a weapon of war".
	In 1993--six years before the period under discussion this evening--I recall making a visit to Bosnia as a follow-up to the Warburton report on the use of rape as a weapon of war. I spoke to many desperate women in the Croatian refugee camps at the time about the terrible conditions through which they had gone, including the gang rape of children as young as 12 and 13. Those children's future had been ruined, given the culture from which they came. That was not in 1998 or 1999, but exactly the same person was responsible for the use of rape as a weapon of war in Bosnia as in Kosovo later: Slobodan Milosevic.
	My third quote is perhaps the most telling:
	"The accounts of refugees also give compelling examples of the organised and systematic nature of what was being perpetrated by Yugoslav and Serbian forces, and their tolerance for and collusion in acts of extreme lawlessness by paramilitaries and armed civilians".

Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. To what period does the last quotation refer?

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, it covers the period of the investigations into refugees made by the OSCE in Macedonia and also Albania. I cannot give the precise dates, but I have clearly indicated to the noble Lord that the report itself refers back to 1998. I have also given clear first-hand evidence that these practices were not first perpetrated in Kosovo but long before in Bosnia and Croatia. I give one more example. I saw at first hand the so-called winter exercises of the Yugoslav army in Kosovo in January 1999, two months before NATO intervened. I saw at least half a dozen villages burnt to the ground. I was so horrified by what I saw--for example, children's shoes in burnt-out houses--that I became then, as I am to this day, a strong supporter of intervention by NATO in Kosovo. If we pretend otherwise we should see the recent film made about Srebrnica entitled "A Cry from the Grave". If we do not recognise that this is a systematic, strategically planned and carefully thought out policy to commit atrocities against civilians we should not take part in any discussion without looking at the evidence at first hand.
	In the terribly troubled century that has just ended, we have seen the use of state policy to break human beings. One example is Hitler's Germany; another is Stalin's Russia. The anarchy that has led to the killing of Serb civilians is unforgivable, but it is not the same as state policy. One has in mind the words of William Butler Yeats:
	"Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
	The blood-dimmed tide is loosed".
	Anarchy and state policy are two different things.
	What can we do now? I agree with the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd. At this point I am not totally uncritical of Her Majesty's Government. I believe that, as Justice Arbour said, unless there is justice there will be revenge. First, justice is still not established in Kosovo. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, when he spoke about the need to put resources into justice. We have not done it. I understand that there is not even a UK financial contribution to the work of OSCE. But without justice one plunges into revenge. The code of ethics of the peoples of the Balkans is one of revenge. "If no one avenges me I shall avenge myself". Ignatieff calls it the warrior's honour; it is all about tit-for-tat, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
	Secondly, I believe that the British Government should support the training of more police and courts in Kosovo. Thirdly, I believe that they should disarm both of the conflicting ethnic groups in Mitrovica which is currently under the French UN force. To allow one ethnic group to kill another in an area where one has thousands of troops is insupportable. Finally, I ask the Minister what steps we are taking to try to bring about the return of Serb prisoners from Kosovo and the many thousands of Kosovar Albanian prisoners currently in Serbian prisons. That could be a key to a better relationship between both sides. Such an exchange of prisoners has been a building block in the peace negotiations, however troubled, in Northern Ireland. I believe that we can learn from that lesson in Kosovo.

Lord Rea: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down perhaps I may put one question. Does she agree that, despite the horrible atrocities committed by the Serbs in Bosnia and Albania before the decision of NATO to intervene, when the bombing commenced and the OSCE monitors left the country the atrocities vastly increased and it was at that point that the majority of the Albanian expulsions took place?

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I agree that there was an escalation, as invariably happens. There was an escalation in German mobilisation after the strategic bombing of German towns in 1943 and 1944. However, I do not believe that there is any evidence that NATO's intervention was related directly to atrocities, and I tried to explain why. I have also given the House first-hand evidence of what happened in Bosnia when there was no intervention and the British and French stood to one side and let it all happen. What was the result? Thousands of innocent people were slaughtered. Srebrnica is a clear case where 8,000 people died and the British and French did absolutely nothing to intervene.

Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Skidelsky for securing this important opportunity to discuss the current situation in Kosovo. I welcome many of the powerful insights made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. All too often, once conflicts are over, the media spotlight is dimmed and the eyes of the world turn elsewhere, ignoring the fact that the real challenge--that of making and keeping a permanent peace--is only just beginning. So today I shall concentrate on what is to be done now.
	As noble Lords have heard today, the publication two months ago of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights reports has provided a valuable window into events in Kosovo, past and present; and has shed light on the grave problems Kosovo has faced and continues to face.
	Page after page of the report reveals an organised and systematic strategy of human rights and humanitarian law violations, most brutally implemented. The report makes clear that Belgrade has much to answer for in its years of ruthless incitement of ethnic hatreds in the region. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to outline how the Government intend to make use of the reliable database that the report constitutes in order to agree upon appropriate measures to restore and maintain international peace and security in the region; and to bring to justice those responsible for the crimes uncovered, which is an important part of the reconciliation process by which dismembered societies are invisibly stitched back together.
	Part II of the OSCE report which documents the period between 14th June and 31st October, when more than 800,000 refugees returned to a war-torn Kosovo under K-FOR protection and UN administration, confirms that Kosovo remains infected with the disease of ethnic hatred and violence and that the nightmares described in Part I are living ones and cannot be consigned to the archives of the past. With one example after another, the report depicts a Kosovo convulsed by the poison of revenge, with acts of vindictive, retaliatory violence contributing to the creation of a climate of lawlessness and impunity.
	The report notes that two particularly iniquitous trends have emerged: the targeting of vulnerable, elderly Kosovo Serbs and the participation of juveniles in human rights violations, both of which disturbingly underline the growing intolerance that has emerged within the Kosovo Albanian community.
	The current situation in Kosovo highlights the critical importance of the work of the UN mission (UNMIK) in the rebuilding of civil society in the province, a fact which makes the recent allegations of bureaucracy and incompetence against UNMIK all the more disturbing. Yet nearly eight months since the conflict was ended and NATO troops entered Kosovo to keep the peace, today's reality is very far from that goal. Back in May, the Prime Minister promised the refugees of Kosovo,
	"practical help, practical commitment and above else a determination that all this suffering and all this misery...[should] not last but [should] be reversed",
	so that those same dispossessed refugees would become,
	"symbols of hope, humanity and peace".
	Yet, despite the international presence, there are very few "symbols of hope, humanity and peace" to be found and the peace that has been built to date stands on the flimsiest of foundations.
	The international community has not been able to deliver on its promises. No Kosovar of any ethnicity feels secure. There is no region in Kosovo in which human rights are fully respected. Tens of thousands remain without adequate shelter. Civil registration has yet to get under way. No Serb has agreed to stand on the new UNMIK-Kosovo Joint Interim Administrative Structure. Kosovo's long-term status is still in question. Its economy and infrastructure are still devastated. And, as we have heard today, there is no agreed-upon, functional system of justice, and criminals, including war criminals, continue to operate.
	As though to acknowledge that no remedy has been found for the contagion of intimidation and intolerance, the UN Mission in Kosovo, UNMIK, no longer talks about reconciliation but about "the first step of co-existence". This is a step that has yet to be taken.
	The stark back-drop to the post-war setting described in OSCE reports makes it clear that only a strong law enforcement system can prevent the atmosphere of vindictive revenge that has perpetuated such violence. Amnesty International makes it clear that the international community, through UNMIK, must bear some responsibility for the failures in Kosovo. Last month, Amnesty concluded that the murder of a Slavic Muslim family in Prizren--a father, mother, daughter and an elderly grandmother--highlighted the continuing failure of the international community to protect the human rights of all minorities in Kosovo.
	Does the Minister agree with Amnesty that it is indeed,
	"time for the international presence to fulfil its obligation to protect human rights and take urgent action to prevent further human rights abuses"?
	Does the noble Baroness further agree that the rebuilding of an open and inclusive society in Kosovo founded on the principles of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms can be realised only through the continued monitoring and reporting of the human rights situation and the establishment of the rule of law?
	Dr Bernard Kouchner once again was going recently, cap in hand, to the international community in Brussels. He was urgently pleading for more UN policemen, for more support for training local police and for the local system of justice, and for the plentiful pledges and promises of funds from the Kosovo Donors Conference to be fulfilled.
	Can the Minister assist the House by explaining why, when the Foreign Secretary was hopeful last June that 3,000 international police officers would be deployed in Kosovo by July last year, today there are still fewer than 2,000 police officers deployed?
	We used all the energies of NATO to stop the killing, and the atrocities, at a cost of billions. Yet it appears that we do not have the small resources which would make all the difference between success and failure in Kosovo. If all the nations in the world who claimed to fight for freedom and against repression cannot now manage to send sufficient police officers to Kosovo, then I regret to say that that failure may cost the world Kosovo's peace.
	From these Benches we would be the first to say that our expectations must be realistic. Kosovo will not be changed overnight. The legacy of human rights violations that occurred before, during and after the conflict is a very heavy one. Kosovo is a society eviscerated by hatred and fear. Such deep wounds take time to heal. In diplomatic, financial, ethical or any terms, peace is a better investment than war, and certainly an intermittent war. The principle is one which I am sure the Minister will be eager to acknowledge. We must not find ourselves in the position of winning the war that we have chosen to fight, but losing the peace we have sought to impose.
	The point has been made by the President of the European Commission. Romano Prodi said,
	"As each day passes I am increasingly worried that the capacity for organising war far outstrips our capacity to co-ordinate the reconstruction of people's shattered lives".
	His concerns struck a deep chord. In the cease-fires and armistices which the UN presides over, it is a lesson well learned that combat suspended is not combat ended. While international peacekeepers are occupied in keeping apart parties who remain hostile, while war seethes under the surface and its underlying causes are not addressed, the deep scars and wounds of conflict will never heal and true peace cannot take root and thrive.
	I am sure the Minister will recognise that there have been reverberations far wider than the immediate vicinity of Kosovo, and, indeed, the debate today in this House. These reverberations will continue to be felt in transatlantic attitudes, relations and institutions for a long time. There is an increasing demand for answers to questions about the legality of intervention, mandates for intervention, and burden sharing, both financial and in terms of manpower, firepower, equipment and resources.
	In conclusion, we are all agreed that the evil ethnic cleansing that took place in Kosovo which led to the NATO operation against Serbia was an assault on the universal values of respect for human rights and dignity. For that reason, we supported the Government's action, yet the way we implement the peace that has been imposed and the resources we commit for that purpose will be the ultimate test of the success or failure of our military intervention in Kosovo.
	The stakes are high for the people of Kosovo, Montenegro, neighbouring states, the Balkans and the international community. Effective war fighting needs to be followed by effective war termination and peace consolidation or history will surely judge us wanting. I look forward to hearing the Minister outline how the Government, who took a lead in winning the war, intend to take a lead in winning the peace in Kosovo.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, for drawing the attention of the House to the important and valuable OSCE report on human rights in Kosovo, published in December 1999. I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord that the report deserves careful perusal. However, it is important to read the report as a whole. We have derived a different flavour from that divined by the noble Lord. We refute entirely any suggestion that the Government have lied. I was surprised to hear such language in this place.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The report Kosovo/Kosova, As Seen As Told is in two parts. The first catalogues the abuses of human rights in Kosovo from October 1998 to June 1999--from the establishment of the OSCE-led Kosovo verification mission to the withdrawal of Yugoslav forces from Serbia secured by the NATO air campaign. The second part of the report covers the period from June to October 1999--the first four months of the international presence in Kosovo established at the end of the crisis.
	Both parts make for disturbing reading and give pause for thought. I will share with the House some thoughts on the implications of the report's findings. I pay tribute to the work of the Kosovo verification mission and in particular to the men and women from Britain who played a crucial role in establishing it. The mission was the result of an agreement between the government of President Milosevic and the OSCE to allow international monitors into Kosovo to give 200,000 internally displaced people, particularly the tens of thousands living in the hills, the confidence to return to their homes--without which, the Secretary-General had warned, there might be a humanitarian catastrophe.
	The presence of the KVM helped temporarily to avert such a catastrophe. Britain sent an initial deployment of 120 verifiers, who were among the first on the ground in early November 1998. They did important and often dangerous work that winter, until the OSCE reluctantly took the decision in March 1999 that the situation was too dangerous to allow the mission to continue.
	The findings of the KVM report are damning. I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, who, with her usual style and flair, captured the horror that was alive in the region before NATO's intervention. I do not hesitate for a moment to repeat some of the quotations that the noble Baroness gave from the OSCE report, for it is important to give a sense of balance and proportion. It stated that,
	"on the part of Yugoslav and Serb forces, their intent to apply mass killing as an instrument of terror, coercion or punishment against Kosovo Albanians was already in evidence in 1998 and was shockingly demonstrated by incidents in January 1999 (including the Racak massacre and beyond)".
	It added that,
	"arbitrary arrest and detention and violation of the right to a fair trial became increasingly the tools of the law enforcement agencies in the suppression of Kosovo Albanian civil and political rights".
	It also said that,
	"rape and other forms of sexual violence were applied, sometimes as weapons of war".
	The House will recall images of horror and terror from Kosovo over the past year. Just over 12 months ago, the world was shocked by the discovery by the KVM of the victims of the massacre at Racak, as many noble Lords have said, when more than 40 Kosovo Albanians were shot at close range and dumped in a ditch. That massacre prompted the Contact Group to summon the Belgrade government and the leadership of the Kosovo Albanians to peace talks in France to resolve the crisis in the province by a political settlement.
	The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said that the responsibility for Racak has never been established. I remind the House that the Serbs refused to allow the War Crimes Tribunal to investigate Racak. If the Serbs wanted the truth to be discovered, they would have co-operated with the tribunal as the Security Council had demanded. The Serbs refused.
	A lot of nonsense has been spoken about the Rambouillet negotiations. With respect and much regret, I cannot agree with the sentiments expressed in that respect by my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden. Those negotiations were not an attempt to impose NATO government over Kosovo. The agreements worked out by European, Russian and US negotiators were to keep Kosovo within FRY and to restore the autonomy that Milosevic had stolen 10 years before. The negotiations were not an attempt to impose NATO forces across the territory of FRY. We asked FRY to negotiate with NATO arrangements to allow NATO allies and others, such as Russia, to supply the troops they would send to Kosovo to underpin the political settlement there.
	The negotiations were not an attempt to force the Serbs into rejecting an agreement to give NATO some sort of excuse for bombing. We were committed to making the negotiations succeed and worked hard to achieve that objective. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and his French counterpart, as chairman of the talks, spent hours at Rambouillet persuading the two sides to reach agreement.

Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the implementation appendix of the Rambouillet accord gave NATO and its allies full access to FRY territory? That was not the case in the agreement that ended the bombing last June.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it was clearly thought necessary at that stage for that requirement to be added and I do not resile from it for a moment. In the end, the Albanians accepted the agreement, even though it fell short of what they wanted, but the Serbs refused. It was not a hidden NATO agenda but a clear Serb one that was to blame for that failure. As the KVM report makes clear, while the Serbs were meant to be negotiating in France, their forces were beginning a spring offensive in Kosovo. That offensive was under way before NATO action began.
	My noble friend Lord Judd rightly mentioned the complexity of the conflict between the Serbian and Albanian people resident in Kosovo. When NATO launched its first air strikes, 70,000 refugees had already been displaced from Kosovo in neighbouring states--as well as 200,000 people internally displaced within Kosovo. NATO intervened to avert a humanitarian catastrophe. The Serbs reacted by accelerating the brutal offensive already under way. NATO, in response, made clear that an objective of its campaign would be the return to Kosovo of all those people expelled by Milosevic's ethnic cleansing. That objective was secured.
	The report's authors spoke to hundreds of Kosovars during the enforced exile. They report an interview with a refugee explaining why he fled Kosovo last May. The man was in his house in Pristina when five or six armed men arrived. They started to smash up the house, placed a bucket over the man's head, then proceeded to kick him in the stomach and ribs. They demanded money, then threatened to kill him. They held a lighter to the man's face and burnt his moustache and mouth. They beat him with rifle butts. They said if they found him again they would kill him. The next day, the man fled Kosovo for Macedonia.
	Anyone who doubts that NATO had to intervene to stop what was being done to innocent victims in Kosovo should read the OSCE report--and read it fully.
	The justification for our intervention in Kosovo was to stop the appalling repression--as the UN had demanded--and avert the humanitarian catastrophe, of which the UN had warned. The alternative would have left the EU and NATO as spectators while Serb atrocities continued and accelerated. If we needed any extra flavour, I suggest that we have only to remind ourselves of the powerful words of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who gave the House graphic evidence of what she saw with her own eyes.
	The criticism that we cannot intervene in every crisis invites the retort: does that justify doing nothing in any situation? As the Foreign Secretary said in his Chatham House speech last Friday, try telling that to the Kosovo Albanians, whose long years of suffering were ended by NATO.
	The OSCE returned to Kosovo in June 1999. The organisation was given responsibility within the United Nations Mission for democratisation and governance, police training, institution building and human rights monitoring. In pursuance of this last function, some 75 human rights monitors have been at work in Kosovo over the past eight months. The second part of the OSCE report is the result of their work.
	The report notes that serious human rights violations have continued to occur in Kosovo. I am sure that the House will agree that the persecution and intimidation of the Serbs and other minorities in Kosovo is appalling. It is right that we should condemn it. NATO intervened to uphold the principle of a multi-ethnic Kosovo, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, touched upon in his speech. We should not let others destroy this now. But, as the OSCE report brings out, what is happening now is very different in scale and nature from the state-sponsored terror and ethnic cleansing practised by the forces of the Milosevic regime in Kosovo.
	Since we have a few moments, I shall take the opportunity to reply to some of the specific issues that have been raised in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was right to concentrate on the challenges with which we are faced for the future, and progress is being made in tackling them. Bernard Kouchner, the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Kosovo, notes in his foreword to the report that many of the abuses documented in Kosovo since last June have been committed by members of Albanian armed groups against other ethnic Albanians and non-Albanians. There have also been allegations against Serb armed groups.
	However, all our efforts have brought good fruit. The result has been a significant decline in levels of violence and intimidation; but one murder a week is one too many. I accept that entirely. Part of the answer is that Kosovo needs a fully functioning criminal justice system, as has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Judd and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. Dr Kouchner's recent decision to revert to the legal system which applied in Kosovo before Milosevic stole its autonomy has helped. As a result, the UN Mission is finding it much easier to recruit local judges and prosecutors. In the past week alone some 130 were sworn in.
	I shall now turn to one or two specific questions that were raised in the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, asked about the sanctions against Serbia and what is happening as regards the Danube. Sanctions are intended to maintain pressure against the regime in Belgrade led by men indicted for crimes against humanity. So far as concerns the Danube, the EU would be ready to consider supporting work to clear the Danube. However, Milosevic has so far refused to co-operate.
	In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, as regards support given to the OSCE we are one of the OSCE's strongest supporters. We contribute 10 per cent of its budget in Kosovo and 10 per cent of its personnel, including more than 30 UK policemen training the future local police force in the OSCE-run training school. In addition, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, who raised the issue of the 2,000 police, we agree that UNMIK needs more police. Some 60 RUC officers are in place, recognised as among the most effective in the international presence. Furthermore, we continue to monitor that issue.
	The EU has an important role to play, but the international community can only do so much. The lasting answer has to come from the people of Kosovo. The special efforts of UNMIK and KFOR devoted to minority protection can only be a temporary solution, treating the symptoms rather than the disease itself. The people of Kosovo must take on their responsibilities. Those responsibilities are very broad indeed. This Government will continue to play a leading part in working to achieve the goals of peace and security for all Kosovars, be they Serbs or Albanians resident in that country.

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, will she respond to my query about the victims of NATO bombings, those who were killed or injured? I raised the issue of compensation for such victims. They were Albanian as well as Serb, as my noble friend knows.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have replied to that question before and the noble Baroness gave the answer. I re-emphasise that everything is being done to restructure and assist the Kosovar people to regain stability. We very much hope that that will help to compensate them for the terrible suffering that has been visited upon them by Milosevic and all that has followed with him.

Local Government Bill [H.L.]

House again in Committee.
	Clause 23 [Power of Secretary of State to require referendum]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 221 and 222:
	Page 12, line 35, at end insert ("for or in connection with").
	Page 12, line 37, leave out ("require") and insert ("direct").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 223 not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 224 to 234:
	Page 12, line 38, leave out from ("arrangements") to end of line 39 and insert ("involving an executive which takes a particular form permitted by or under section 10.").
	Page 12, line 41, leave out (", in particular,").
	Page 12, line 41, leave out ("as to").
	Page 12, line 42, at beginning insert ("as to").
	Page 12, line 43, at beginning insert ("as to").
	Page 12, line 43, leave out ("to") and insert ("which may, may not or must").
	Page 12, line 43, after ("before") insert ("or in connection with").
	Page 13, line 1, at beginning insert ("as to").
	Page 13, line 1, leave out ("to") and insert ("which may, may not or must").
	Page 13, line 1, at end insert (", and
	( ) for or in connection with enabling the Secretary of State, in the event of any failure by a local authority to take any action permitted or required by virtue of the regulations, to take that action").
	Page 13, line 2, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert--
	("(3) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (2) includes provision which applies or reproduces (with or without modifications) any provisions of section 18, 19, 20 or (Operation of alternative arrangements).
	(4) Nothing in subsection (2) or (3) affects the generality of the power under subsection (1).").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 235 not moved.]
	On Question, Whether Clause 23, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Dixon-Smith: I must confess that I find Clause 23 immensely depressing and I regret deeply that I should have to see such a clause in any legislation. Furthermore, I regret that the Government have felt it desirable to bring forward the clause.
	Clause 23 provides that:
	"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision enabling him, in such circumstances as may be prescribed in the regulations"--
	for which he is responsible--
	"to require a local authority to hold a referendum on whether they should operate executive arrangements",
	and so forth. What an amazing vote of confidence in his own proposals that the Secretary of States feels that he must have regulatory power to force local authorities to do what is required here. I am sorry; I find that very depressing.
	When one looks at the draft regulations, one finds that it appears to the Secretary of State that the authority has not drawn up this or that, or that it has drawn up this without having done that, or that the authority's proposals do not comply with this or that. And it goes on and on. It does not quite say at the end, "and in such other circumstances as the Secretary of State thinks are appropriate", but it jolly nearly comes to that. That seems to be something which I should find slightly encouraging because it indicates that the Secretary of State has no confidence in his own proposals and therefore he does not believe that people will go through willingly with what is proposed in the legislation. Therefore, he needs to reserve power to force them to do so.
	That may be the way of new Labour. If it is, in due time they will pay for that arrogance. I do not believe that that is the proper way for this country to go forward; still less do I believe that it is a proper way to treat democratically elected authorities which might be supposed to have a will of their own. For that reason it seemed to me that it would be preferable that Clause 23 be excised from the Bill. It is with that in mind that I tabled the Motion that Clause 23 should not stand part of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: I feel that the noble Lord is reading rather more into the intentions behind this clause than his speech would suggest. We have already made a draft of the regulations, which set out what an authority must do in that respect. I see that the noble Lord has already marked the sentence. Therefore, he will know that all those circumstances relate to a situation where a local authority either does not comply with the legislation or guidance in drawing up its proposals or, alternatively, it does not have regard to the wishes of local people following a period of consultation in line with that guidance and legislation; in other words, a local authority will have decided either to opt out entirely from the word go or to ignore the will of the people once it has been sought.
	We do not believe that there will be many such situations. However, we believe that the power is necessary to deal with isolated cases of abuse and to avoid the necessity in those circumstances of having to resort to the courts where an authority does not comply with the legislation. There is nothing more sinister than that behind the clause. Its purpose is to deal with situations of abuse or possibly inertia on the part of local authorities when moving to executive arrangements, which is the whole objective of the legislation. It is simply a safeguard to ensure that councils comply with the legislation and progress to new constitutions at a reasonable pace. It does not give us, nor would we wish to have, powers arbitrarily to require local authorities to hold referendums or to intervene in other circumstances. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Lord Dixon-Smith: It is only because I have stood opposite the Minister for so long and begin to have an element of faith in his words that I feel inclined not to pursue the matter further. However, I shall need to study exactly what he said before I determine absolutely not to deal with the issue at some point further down the line. I am grateful to him for his reply, which certainly helps. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 236:
	After Clause 23, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:POWER TO REQUIRE REFERENDUM
	(".--(1) The Secretary of State may by order make provision requiring every local authority, or every local authority falling within any description of authority specified in the order, to hold a referendum on whether they should operate executive arrangements involving an executive which takes such form permitted by or under section 10 as may be specified in the order.
	(2) The provision which may be made by an order under this section includes provision--
	(a) as to the date on which, or the time by which, a referendum must be held,
	(b) as to the action which may, may not or must be taken by a local authority before or in connection with a referendum,
	(c) as to the action which may, may not or must be taken by a local authority after a referendum,
	(d) for or in connection with enabling the Secretary of State, in the event of any failure by a local authority to take any action permitted or required by virtue of the order, to take that action.
	(3) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (2) includes provision which applies or reproduces (with or without modifications) any provisions of sections 18, 19, 20 or (Operation of alternative arrangements).
	(4) Nothing in subsection (2) or (3) affects the generality of the power under subsection (1).").

Lord Whitty: I beg to move.

[Amendment No. 236A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 236, not moved.]
	Amendment No. 236 agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 237:
	After Clause 23, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS ETC
	(".--(1) A local authority which is operating executive arrangements must prepare and keep up to date a document (referred to in this section as their constitution) which contains--
	(a) such information with respect to the discharge of their functions (including functions which are the responsibility of the executive) as the Secretary of State may direct,
	(b) a copy of the authority's standing orders for the time being,
	(c) a copy of the authority's code of conduct for the time being under section 36, and
	(d) such other information (if any) as the authority consider appropriate.
	(2) A local authority must ensure that copies of their constitution are available at their principal office for inspection by members of the public at all reasonable hours.").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 24 [Guidance]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 238:
	Page 13, line 11, leave out subsection (2).
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 239 and 240 not moved.]
	Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 25 [Elected mayors]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 241 and 242:
	Page 13, line 27, leave out ("of") and insert ("made by or under").
	Page 13, line 27, at end insert--
	("(1A) Except to the extent that regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section otherwise provide, an elected mayor of a local authority is to be treated for the purposes of the enactments relating to local government as a member and councillor of the authority.").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 243 not moved.]
	Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 26 agreed to.
	Clause 27 [Voting at elections of elected mayors]:

Lord Tope: moved Amendment No. 243A:
	Page 13, line 38, leave out subsection (1).

Lord Tope: In moving Amendment No. 243A, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 245A, 245B and 245C. This group of amendments deals with the voting system for the election of a mayor, should such an election take place. Perhaps I may say straight away that, contrary to popular impression, I have spent over 30 years in the Liberal and Liberal Democrat Party and have not spent all my time talking about different voting systems. I recognise that those issues do not greatly excite people, but apparently that is not the case here tonight.
	This is an extremely important issue. Should we come to electing a mayor, as in London we shall be doing shortly, it is important that the person who is elected can demonstrate that he demands substantial support. The purpose of our amendments is to substitute the supplementary vote system proposed in the Bill with the alternative vote system. There are important differences. I am fortunate in that the way that the alternative vote system works is set out extremely clearly in Amendment No. 245B. I do not need to take the time of the Committee tonight nor test my intellectual abilities in explaining that.
	The defects of the supplementary vote system, which has the effect of eliminating all but the top two candidates, mean that if there are four or more candidates, which is most likely in any mayoral election, the voters who have to decide on their second preference will have to try either to determine that their second preference vote may well be wasted because their favoured candidate will be eliminated or try to determine who, in effect, will come second. Whatever the rightness or wrongness of their choice, it means that, for many, their second choice will be wasted. The result will be that the successful candidate very likely will be elected with the support of less than half the people who turned out to vote. If we are investing the power that we are in an elected mayor, it must be important that that person is able to demonstrate that he has genuine popular support.
	We did not succeed in persuading the Government of the rightness of this system for London, but we now offer them another opportunity. I am sure that in the months since we dealt with this issue in the GLA Bill, the Minister will have reflected further and seen the weaknesses of the system that the Government have inflicted upon us for London. They will not wish to repeat that mistake for the rest of the country and will now recognise the support which exists for the elections to take place under the alternative vote system. I beg to move.

Lord Lipsey: Unlike the noble, Lord Tope, I have spent much of my life thinking about electoral systems. I was going to suggest that we all put on our anoraks for the next hour! However, having listened to this afternoon's debate, I find that there is a subject still more "anorakial", if I may coin that word, than electoral reform, and that is local government reform. That is a subject discussed with lightness and levity compared to the debates we have had this afternoon. Nevertheless, it is a very important subject on which I wish to detain the Committee for a couple of moments.
	I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that I find it slightly ironic that this amendment should come from the Liberal Democrat side of the Committee because the whole purpose of the electoral system is to find the most legitimate way of electing a mayor. Members on that side of the Committee are not terribly keen on mayors in any event. Therefore, I am not quite sure why they should rally to this cause.
	I am extremely keen on elected mayors and I want to see the best possible system. That is why I intervene in this debate. The Government have chosen an extremely respectable method for the choice of mayor. It is better by tons than the first-past-the-post system. If we had a first-past-the- post system for electing a mayor, according to some calculations which I did this afternoon, it is quite likely that the winning candidate would have the support of less than 10 per cent of the electors in his area. That would not be much of a legitimacy for him to carry into action.
	Therefore, the SV is a perfectly respectable system. It has a number of strong features to commend it. It was the choice of the committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Plant for national elections. It is nice and simple. Academic research has found that people like using it. It does not give weight to people's mild choices. It does not matter whether you prefer the Green Party to the Monster Raving Loony Party because those parties are well down on the list of most voters. But that system was chosen for London and there is a sort of Occam's Razor effect in the electoral system as there is in matters philosophical. So there is a case of substance there which is why that system was chosen for London.
	On the other hand, there is a strong list of features which should commend AV to the Committee. It was the choice of another committee--that chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, on which I had the great privilege to sit--for electoral reform for Westminster. It is simple to use. Indeed, it is used for the lower House in Australia where there is compulsory voting and, therefore, it is not necessarily the case that every voter is the enthusiastic expert who goes to the polls in this country.
	It gives voters more freedom. For example, they can choose between the Green Party and the Fascist Party, which for many of us would be quite an important choice to make. And crucially--and this was the point to which the noble Lord referred--it is the only system which means that when the last ballots are counted, the winning candidate invariably has more than half the votes. That is a powerful case for the AV.
	As regards a change since the Bill for London, I would have thought for that Bill it was even-Stevens: there was a case for the SV; there was a case for the AV; and I certainly do not criticise the Government for opting for the SV. But let us look at the concrete situation in which we find ourselves. SV is fine so long as there are only three serious candidates, which has been the case in the country until now. It works fine. But let us suppose in a couple of weeks' time, as I richly hope, my party chooses Frank Dobson as its standard bearer and let us suppose that Ken Livingstone runs as an independent and the Liberals have their charming Mrs Kramer and the Conservatives have their charming Mr Norris. In that case, people's third and fourth preferences may become terribly important.
	I know that some members of my own party-- I would not necessarily count myself among them--would do anything to stop Ken Livingstone being chosen. They want to be able to put him fourth. But under the SV system, they do not have that choice. It is only their first two choices which will count and, therefore, they do not have that fully articulated option to express their choices right through.
	What has happened in London may happen in other cities. I can imagine situations in which the three parties put forward candidates and some local dignitary or independent puts himself forward. The people there should have the full choice which the AV grants them. We cannot tell the future, but if we were looking again now at a system for London, although I believe the Government made a perfectly good choice at the time, the system of AV would have been better in the situation in which we find ourselves.
	Therefore I ask the Minister to reflect on these questions. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed this evening because the issues require serious consideration. I ask him to go further at a later stage and tell the House that, having reconsidered the arguments, he now sees the case made out for the alternative vote.

Lord Whitty: I see the Conservative Front Bench has no role to play in the slightly esoteric argument taking place among the electoral reformers.
	I have considered the alternative proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. Indeed, it was considered at some length during the deliberations of the commission chaired by my noble friend Lord Plant of Highfield. It may be that that was not the final word of wisdom on the matter. I know that my noble friend Lord Lipsey has sat on other commissions and my noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton has had the distinction of being a member of all of them. Therefore, she is probably the greatest source of wisdom on these matters.
	Nevertheless, there is a difficulty in accepting the view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. It may be said that one difficulty we brought upon ourselves; namely, that we have already adopted the supplementary vote system for London. But having done so, the system must have some clarity about it in terms of how the votes are designated. Most people can move quite easily from putting one cross on a ballot paper to putting two. The final run-off, in effect, is between two persons. Therefore, there is a clear choice. It provides a clear solution. It is simple and easy to understand and results in a clear winner.
	But even if I were slightly hesitant in those arguments, the fact that we have already chosen one system for London is important in that respect. That system has been chosen for the election of a mayor of London, which is the highest-profile contest that we are likely to see, and some people will say, "Thank goodness for that". The election of a mayor for London will be a high profile political event. Why should we have a different system and how do we explain the need for a different system to the electorates of those other authorities which choose to elect a mayor?
	My noble friend Lord Lipsey has explained to the Committee the supplementary vote system. It has certain advantages. The alternative vote system also has advantages and I accept that the balance is a fine one. Nevertheless, I do not believe that there is a clear argument for departing from the decision which we took in relation to London when choosing the system for the election of mayors of other cities and local authorities. Therefore, I am not moved to accept the amendment and I understand that we may return to this matter when we shall probably have a longer and even more arcane debate. However, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Tope, not to pursue the issue this evening.

Baroness Hamwee: I shall write down "amendment for Report" now. Before my noble friend responds, perhaps I can ask the Minister to accept that in the alternative vote system, although electors may vote all the way down a list, they need vote only for one, two or three or however many candidates they choose to vote for.
	Many of us who advocate the system recognise its benefits in allowing that amount of flexibility but also in allowing, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, indicated, one to show one's opposition to a candidate as well.
	I am sure that my noble friends have had the experience which I have had. We use the system of single transferable votes within our party for internal elections. There have been several occasions when I have had quite clear views as to those I would not want to see elected. I have worked on the ballot paper, starting from the top, down a few, then to the bottom and up for a few and then filled in the middle.
	Given that we seem to be moving so fast in the direction of "personality politics", there may well be occasions in mayoral elections when certain candidates will raise strong feelings among the electorate, both in favour of and against. The alternative vote system would allow those feelings against to be expressed in a way that is not possible with the supplemental vote system.
	As we continue with the Bill I gain the increasingly distinct impression, perhaps wrongly, that because mayors in general were thought to be a good thing, Downing Street--maybe particularly the Prime Minister--felt that there should be mayors up and down the country. We are in a situation where we have to work towards that somehow, however many problems are identified and analysed in the legislative process. To say that because we have a particular voting system in London we must therefore apply it directly in other cities and districts seems in no way to support intellectually the argument for mayors. I believe that such argument is becoming weaker as we continue with the Bill.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Perhaps I may point out that most people are perfectly capable of ranking 15 items in order of preference, let alone four or five.

Lord Tope: I am not surprised that the Minister rejected the amendments. On these Benches, one tends to get used to that. However, I was disappointed with the way in which he dismissed not my arguments but the much more able and experienced arguments of his noble friend and, indeed, those of his own party's electoral commission and all the bodies with which the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, was involved. I am pleased to see that the noble Baroness has joined us for this part of the debate.
	I hope I do not do the Minister an injustice by saying that all the arguments are dismissed on the grounds that the mistake has been made once in London. Perhaps it is a mistake recognised with hindsight on his Benches but, I have to say, not on ours. Therefore, having got it wrong for London, the same mistake has to be inflicted on the rest of the country. That appears to be almost exactly what he was saying.
	He also appears to say that the British electorate is not capable of writing down, "1, 2, 3, 4, 5" instead of "X, X". The Minister is not a patronising man. However, that was a patronising statement, although I am sure unintended. I am disappointed by the way in which the Minister dismissed the arguments. I suspect he did so because his brief required it of him rather than because his head told him to do so.
	As he goes home and thinks about the issue--I am sure he will think of little else tonight--I hope that he will perhaps consider the plea, not from these Benches but from his own, to reflect further before the same mistake is made for the rest of the country as is now being demonstrated has been made for London. This small change in the voting system is important. It could easily be made and is one which the Government should now adopt. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 244:
	Page 13, line 39, leave out from ("have") to end of line 4 on page 14 and insert ("one vote and the candidate receiving the greatest number of votes shall be returned as the elected mayor").

Lord Dixon-Smith: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, will not think it ironic to find the Conservative Party trying to change the system of voting for mayors back to first-past-the-post. At least there is an element of consistency in what we advocate. Not only that, we advocate a system which appears to satisfy everybody in the other place. There seems to be no sign at present that they have any wish to change it. One might have thought, therefore, that the first-past-the-post system, which has the merit of even greater simplicity, if perhaps an element of unjust brutality, would be preferable to devising even more complex systems of voting than the one inflicted on London.
	The whole authority is an experiment as the Greater London Authority does not exist. It is just being brought into being. Perhaps, therefore, it is not unreasonable to have an experimental system when dealing with an experimental authority. If the Government had been prepared to sit back, draw a deep breath and wait to see how it worked before inflicting the system on the rest of the country, I might have been more willing to go along with what I would call the direction of their legislation. I nearly said "the drift" of their legislative programme. As stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, they appear to be committed to a system in which mayors are a good idea, therefore everybody should have them.
	In many parts of the country the local government system, although interfered with over the years by numerous governments, has nonetheless been in existence for a long time. We are dealing with longstanding responsible bodies which know exactly the meaning of local administration and do it well. Nonetheless, they are to be changed. If they are to have elected mayors, they will also have inflicted upon them this marginal system of proportional representation. The British people are adaptable and will make of it the best they can. However, as in so many things, I expect that they would prefer the system with which they are familiar. It may not always produce the most just result. However, if we were to explore the result of the last general election there could be some argument about justice and the fact that the Government received fewer votes in 1997 than their predecessors, the Conservative government, in 1992. The difference in results is extraordinary.
	However, that is the system we accept and it would seem reasonable to argue for it. Amendment No. 244 would bring that about. If Amendment No. 244 is accepted, Amendment No. 245 would not be necessary. Schedule 2 appears after this amendment. However, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to it at the same time. Schedule 2 would also be unnecessary in the event that Amendment No. 244 is accepted. That is the reason why Schedule 2 be agreed to is on the Marshalled List. I do not intend to discuss it again. I understand the procedure, that it must be separate, but I shall certainly not speak to it again.
	Our position is clear. We are convinced that the ground on which we are standing is perfectly adequate. I am not optimistic that the Minister will accept my remarks. But if he were to try to impose on Members of Parliament in the other place what he is trying to impose on local government, he might have an interesting debate on his hands. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is right in divining my intentions in relation to this amendment. I regret that I cannot accept it.
	The Government have the benefit of consistency, albeit slightly less long-run than the consistency of the party opposite in defending first-past-the-post to the last ditch in all circumstances and at all times, in that we consider that our proposal in relation to the supplementary vote to be the appropriate one for mayoral contests. We enacted that in relation to London and consider it to be appropriate here.
	We do not consider the first-past-the-post system to be appropriate for a mayor. As alluded to in the previous debate, it could lead to a mayor in a four-sided contest succeeding with around 28 per cent of the vote. That is not an appropriate way in which a mayor for any local authority should be elected. Therefore, though I have some intellectual cross-over with those advocating the alternative rather than the supplementary vote and feel that there is a fine argument in that regard, I do not feel that there is a fine argument here.
	We cannot read across from Westminster seats, whatever one's view may be on how we elect people to the other place. For the institution of mayor we must have a result which at least means that a substantial proportion of the population voted for the mayor either as first or second choice, and not just a potential minority as the amendment suggests. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will not proceed.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I hear what the Minister says. He may well end up with a minority mayor whatever happens if he finishes up with only a 30 per cent poll. So one has a problem. However, I have said what I have said. I do not withdraw any of it, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments No. 245 and 245A not moved.]
	Clause 27 agreed to.
	Schedule 2 [Election of elected mayor]:
	[Amendment No. 245B not moved.]
	Schedule 2 agreed to.
	Clause 28 [Entitlement to vote]:
	[Amendment No. 245C not moved.]
	Clause 28 agreed to.
	Clause 29 [Power to make provision about elections]:
	[Amendment No. 246 not moved.]

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 246A:
	Page 14, line 21, at end insert--
	("( ) the requirements for nomination of candidates for the position of elected mayor, and").

Baroness Hamwee: In moving Amendment No. 246A, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 246B and C and 247A.
	The first of these amendments seeks to insert in Clause 29 a requirement for the Secretary of State to make regulations as to the nomination of candidates for the position of elected mayor. I included this provision as I am not clear that it is otherwise covered. It seems to me that some attention needs to be paid to the number of nominators that a candidate for the position should have. If a potential elected mayor needs nominations only from the same number of electors as any other councillor, I question whether that would be appropriate. The number for councillors is not large and an elected mayor would, by definition, be representing and dealing with a much wider area. It may be that the Government have in mind a multiple of the number of nominations needed by a candidate to be a councillor. But this is a matter which needs attention.
	Amendments Nos. 246B and C deal with the question of elections for the return of elected mayors. I sought to include two relevant points, referring not just to mayors but also to other members of an executive who are directly elected. It seems to me that the way in which the elections of a directly-elected cabinet are dealt with should be set on a fairly similar basis to that which applies to the return of elected mayors. Finally, Amendment No. 247A deals with a similar point to that covered by Amendment No. 246A. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for the issues that she has raised on these amendments. We do not believe that Amendments Nos. 246A and 247A are necessary because the Government already propose powers in the Bill to make such regulations.
	Clause 29 already proposes to enable the making of regulations about the conduct of elections by applying or incorporating previous enactments with or without modification. That includes legislation on nomination requirements for candidates. In addition, government Amendment No. 242, to which I spoke during the first day in Committee, provides that the mayor is a councillor and a member (including nomination requirements for candidates) unless regulations provide otherwise. Therefore, we consider that Amendments Nos. 246A and 247A are unnecessary.
	However, we broadly agree with the points made by the noble Baroness in speaking to Amendments Nos. 246B and 246C. In fact, this issue goes wider than Clause 29 of the Bill; indeed, it applies equally to other clauses, in particular Clauses 25, 26, 27 and 28. Therefore, we wish to take the matter away and consider it carefully before returning to the Chamber. In the light of my response, I hope that the noble Baroness will not feel it necessary to press her amendments tonight.

Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister for her reply. I wonder whether she can tell the Committee what the Government have in mind with regard to the number of nominations for an elected mayor. Is this a matter that has been considered?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We have not yet come to a firm view on whether the nomination requirements for mayoral candidates should differ from those for other councillors. We would like to give the matter further consideration. Perhaps it will be helpful if I point out that regulations under Clause 29 will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure and, as I have already indicated, subject to consultation with the electoral commission once it is established. Therefore, this Chamber will have another opportunity to debate the issue when those regulations are considered.

Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister for that further response. By now she will be very clear that our view is that the number of nominations required for a candidate for elected mayor should be rather more substantial than for a councillor. I am aware of the difficulties that at least one of the independent candidates for mayor of London is having. He is spending all his time going round the boroughs gathering up the 330 signatures that are required, but that figure may be on the high side for mayors outside London. I am grateful to the Minister for her comments about Amendments Nos. 246B and 246C, and beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 246A.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 246B and 246C not moved.]

Lord Tope: moved Amendment No. 247:
	Page 14, line 24, at end insert ("and
	(c) the recall of the Mayor in the event of a loss of confidence and the filling of a casual vacancy").

Lord Tope: This amendment would give the Secretary of State power to make regulations to provide for the recall of the mayor, should that become necessary and appropriate. I am, again, conscious that we are returning to a subject that we debated on a number of occasions during the progress of the GLA legislation. We failed to convince the Government at that time. However, it is possible that, during the course of events in the Conservative Party before Christmas, the Government began to wonder whether they were right to resist this proposal. I suspect that they may be wondering even more now as regards events which may well unfold in their own party in two or three weeks' time.
	We are discussing an extremely important issue. In the case of an elected mayor, whether in London or, with slightly less profile but still high profile, in other major cities, we are vesting in one person very considerable power; and, indeed, even greater profile and influence. I do not put forward lightly the proposal that such a person should easily be recalled simply through any party shenanigans, for whatever reason. But the fact that such a person should be elected for four years and be beyond any recall--subject, of course, to the law of the land--must surely be wrong.
	I cannot think of any other elected politician in this county--or, for that matter, in most other countries--with considerable personal power who cannot be recalled for any matter other than clearly breaking the law, or going demonstrably mad. Surely we should have some provision for the recall of a mayor in circumstances upon which we may speculate tonight, but perhaps it would be better not to do so. We can all envisage circumstances when that action might become necessary and it is clearly unsatisfactory at that stage to find that nothing can be done.
	I am aware that when we discussed the GLA Bill the amendments we sought to move were objected to at least in part as a consequence of the different mechanisms that we suggested for recalling the mayor. I accept that that was only part of the argument, but it was certainly a part of it. In this amendment we seek to give that power to the Secretary of State to determine. The Secretary of State, of course, can do no wrong and will be far more capable of dealing with this matter than the humble Members on these Benches trying to construct amendments. However, I say in all seriousness that I hope this amendment concentrates on the principle of the issue rather than on the mechanics of achieving the outcome which we seek. The principle is extremely important. We should not allow people to attain such considerable personal power without any means of recalling them under any circumstances. I hope that the Government will give this issue further consideration. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: As the noble Lord said, during the passage of the GLA Bill we discussed this matter several times in connection with the role of the mayor. The question of recall of the mayor became a matter of relatively high drama in this Chamber. I suspect that the arguments behind the amendment will resurface. However, we do not even know what mechanism the noble Lord proposes, as he proposes handing responsibility for the mechanism of removal to the Secretary of State to prescribe in regulations. At least during the passage of the GLA Bill several different mechanisms to remove the mayor of London were proposed. I objected to all of them on the principle that one group of elected politicians should not be able to take a decision--I was going to say "conspire"--to remove another directly elected politician. That does not apply in any other part of our constitution.
	It is not correct to say that there is no means of removing the mayor; indeed, the noble Lord in effect referred to them. The mayor will be subject to the law of the land and to local government regulations. Demonstrable insanity is catered for in local government provisions, as it was in the London Bill. Should a mayor be removed for political reasons, or should this important office be subject to recall on the basis of a political arrangement by other elected politicians? We have a judicial procedure in the event of crime being committed. If, however, it is a case of political misdemeanours as viewed by the mayor's opponents within the council, or by some other group that regulations may prescribe, I do not believe that is a legitimate case for recall and I would resist any amendment on those lines.
	I accept that there is a slightly stronger argument for recalling a mayor through popular mandate: that is, through a petition or through the demand of a minimum number of the electorate. However, at what figure does one pitch a petition or trigger a ballot to make it legitimate as a means of overthrowing the decision of the majority of the electorate--if the mayor is elected on a majority, or a number close to a majority--without making it appear ludicrously high and unattainable? Therefore there are problems of legitimacy as regards any political means of attempting to recall the mayor.
	I do not accept that that is a sensible way to deal with an office which we expect to last a full four-year term and to be responsible for delivering a wide range of services. I do not accept that the mayor should be restricted or recalled because perhaps he or she is not of the same political persuasion as the majority, or a temporary majority, of the council, or there is an issue on which the 5 per cent threshold--if that is to be the relevant threshold of the electorate--might be mobilised through good organisation. It would gravely inhibit the mayor to carry out a four-year strategic approach to his or her task on the basis that such a response as I have described might be provoked if a particular issue was unpopular.
	I therefore oppose the amendment in principle in relation to political removal. It is there already in practice in terms of legal crimes and Local Government Act crimes; it is not necessary to get the Secretary of State, with his admittedly vast ingenuity, to draft regulations which would enable the removal of a mayor part-way through his or her term. I oppose the amendment. I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue it.

Lord Tope: I am perhaps a little less surprised at that response, although I am still saddened that we cannot move the Minister even on the principle.
	I accept entirely that any measure to remove an elected mayor should not be taken lightly and only in the most extreme circumstances. We would all hope that such circumstances would never arise. But it is probable that, sooner or later, somewhere they will arise. Let us take, first, the circumstances under current legislation in which a mayor could be removed. Demonstrable insanity is not always easy to demonstrate; sometimes it takes some time to do so. Indeed, some would say that insanity is demonstrated merely by wishing to seek the office in the first place. However, in all seriousness, insanity is not easily demonstrated. It also takes time to prove criminal activity through the judicial process. During such processes, the administration of the area concerned is undoubtedly paralysed and polarised.
	I understand the principle that concerns the Minister--I share that concern--that someone who has been democratically elected should not easily be removed from office. That is important. One of our proposals under the GLA Bill--I do not want particularly to return to these matters--was described as the nuclear option. In a city as large as London, any popular vote in terms of petition numbers and so on was a practical impossibility. We suggested that the members of the assembly, by a very large majority--I forget the exact figure--should have the right to dismiss the mayor but, in so doing, would dismiss themselves as well. No assembly is likely to vote by a large majority for such an option unless it is absolutely necessary, because its members would then be facing the electorate and having to justify the action they had taken. I thought that was a very fair proposal to deal with such circumstances--which we hope will never arise, but might--in a city as large as London.
	We have deliberately not chosen mechanics, which would give the Minister another easy option to shoot us down, but rather we have tried to concentrate on the principle that unfettered power to an individual should not be allowed. There should be some means of recalling a mayor under extreme circumstances without a lengthy and paralysing judicial process in regard to criminal matters or in regard to matters of sanity or insanity.

Lord Whitty: I apologise to the Committee. I was reminded when the noble Lord said "under extreme circumstances" that there was one measure I failed to mention in my previous remarks--that is, that the new ethical framework will apply to the mayor as it will to other office holders. Therefore the question of disqualification or suspension could arise in that context. Again that is not a political removal but a quasi judicial removal. I thought, for the record, that the noble Lord should recognise that that circumstance is already covered.

Lord Tope: I am pleased to hear that. Again, I do not think that that adequately covers the point. Now is not the time to press the matter further, although I suspect that we shall return to it at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 247A not moved.]

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 247B:
	Page 15, line 1, leave out subsection (4) and insert--
	("(4) The return of an elected mayor at an election may be questioned in accordance with any enactment or regulation enabling the questioning of the return at an election of a member or councillor of a local authority.").

Baroness Hamwee: I shall not take long. Subsection (4) of Clause 29 provides that no return of an elected mayor is to be questioned other than by an election petition. My amendment reverses that and gives me the opportunity to ask the Minister what the Government are excluding in the subsection. It appears to provide greater protection for the mayor than for other elected councillors and that requires justification on the record. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As currently drafted, subsection (4) of Clause 29 provides that mayoral elections may be challenged only by election petitions under regulations which apply the provisions of Part III of the Representation of the People Act 1983. This deals with the procedure for questioning local elections. Amendment No. 247B would replace that with wording which seeks to apply automatically the Representation of the People Act provisions about the questioning of elections. The noble Baroness's amendment would therefore appear to be unnecessary since it only seeks to achieve what regulations made under the current version of the subsection will achieve. The benefit of doing this by regulations is that they will be able to take account of the particular circumstances of mayoral elections where necessary. The noble Baroness's amendment does not allow for such fine tuning. I hope that she will feel able to withdraw it.

Baroness Hamwee: It may be the time of night, but I am not sure what the Government are achieving here. Perhaps I had better read what the Minister said. It is inappropriate that the problems arising from the election of councillors are dealt with in primary legislation but in the case of an elected mayor are to be excluded from primary legislation and dealt with in secondary legislation. If anything, the regulations dealing with the election of mayor should be on the face of the statute, as is the case with elected councillors. It is a great pity that yet again something which was thought by previous Parliaments to be sufficiently important to be included in statute is being taken out of primary legislation and left for secondary legislation. However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 29 agreed to.
	Clause 30 [Provisions with respect to referendums]:

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 248:
	Page 15, line 7, leave out ("five") and insert ("three").

Lord Dixon-Smith: I would not wish to raise the Minister's hopes that I have suddenly become a convert to the desirability of having many referendums just because I have tabled this amendment. If that were the case, the certifiable condition referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, might well be applied to me. It would certainly be certifiable inconsistency!
	The amendment was tabled in the expectation, which, as I suspected, would not be borne out, that we could enable local authorities to reverse out of the cul-de-sac which the Minister was driving them into by giving them an option to have a referendum to return to a more traditional form of administration. That is not the case, but it was the motivation behind the amendment. Therefore, when the time comes I shall seek to withdraw it. I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 249 standing in my name. I seek to amend the provision because it seems wishy-washy. When does a five-year period start? By the time one reaches the referendum process, the authority will have produced a lawful scheme, consulted locally, notified the Secretary of State and made the many and far-reaching changes consequent upon the proposal. Therefore, the start of the five-year period should relate to the passage of the resolution under Clause 20(1). That gives us a cut-off period so that the local authority knows from when the five-year period is to run. Otherwise, I suspect that the matter will have to be set out in regulations.

Baroness Hamwee: My Amendment No. 257A is in this group. It may seem unnecessary and I hope that the Minister will tell me that it is. It seeks to establish that the term "referendum" as used in the Bill means a referendum under the provisions of the Bill--or the Act, as it will be. It seems a matter of common sense that the Secretary of State's regulation-making power in respect of referendums cannot extend to referendums on other legislation. All the amendment seeks is confirmation of that point.

Lord Whitty: I regret that I cannot accept any of the amendments. In relation to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, we considered the five-year period for some time. It seems to us the most sensible period for a number of reasons. The principal reason is that it does not seem sensible that, having introduced a new executive structure, within the first term of that executive structure there should be another process started for yet another change. We therefore consider that the period between referendums would have to be at least four years and, in reality and in practice, five years; after the end of a full term.
	With regard to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, I take the point about having a clear start date. It may well be that that needs to be dealt with in regulations. However, the amendment as drafted would have a perverse effect. Not only would it make it impossible within the five-year period for local people to trigger a referendum when the council had opted for an executive structure, but it could, at least notionally, mean that a council seeking to avoid ever having a referendum could simply tweak its executive arrangements, pass another resolution under Clause 20 and therefore roll on the process for ever. I am sure that was not the intention behind the noble Baroness's amendment but, nevertheless, it could be its effect.
	I turn to Amendment No. 257A proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I assure the Committee that the Government do not intend to use the provisions of the Bill, and in particular this clause, to prevent a local authority from holding referendums on issues other than executive arrangements if they wish to do so and have the powers to do so. But a definition of "referendum" for the purposes of Part II of the Bill would not be appropriate because wherever the word occurs it needs to be read in that particular context. It does not have a single meaning applied throughout Part II. For example, in Clause 22 it means a referendum under that clause; in Clause 23 it means a referendum under that clause, and so on.
	In Clause 30, the effect of subsection (7) is to ensure that references to referendums in Clause 30 are clearly references to referendums held under that clause. Any other definition in one clause could not necessarily be read across to the others. I hope that that is clear and that the noble Baroness will therefore not pursue her amendment. I hope also that the other amendments will not be pursued.

Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, responds, I obviously did not make myself clear. I was not seeking to apply different definitions to different references to referendums in the various clauses; I believed that I had found the right place to include an amendment covering the whole of the Bill. My point was not the distinction between different types of referendums within the Bill but referendums within the Bill and under other pieces of legislation. It seems to be quite clear that the Government do not intend the various provisions on referendums in the Bill to be read over into any other legislation, but since we do not have a definition of "referendum" as such in a way that limits it, it seemed to me worth pursuing the admittedly rather pedantic but possibly important point. Furthermore, I wanted to make the reason for my amendment clear to the Government, as I obviously had not done so before.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I indicated earlier that it was not my intention to press the amendment. I therefore beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 249 to 251A not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 252:
	Page 15, line 20, at end insert ("or referendums").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 253:
	Page 15, line 24, at end insert ("(including the publicity to be given with respect to the consequences of the referendum)").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 254:
	Page 15, line 27, leave out paragraph (d).

Baroness Hanham: Paragraph (d) states,
	"permitting a referendum to take place in a manner which does not involve a poll".
	I have never come across such a provision. One could, I suppose, do this by telephone or one could have a MORI poll, but I assume that a referendum is meant to be done by formal polling and formal marking up of a referendum question. It may be that regulations will describe what a "non poll" is. I should be grateful for an explanation. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: I shall try to clarify the intention behind this provision. The noble Baroness will be aware that yesterday we gave the Representation of the People Bill its Second Reading. Among other things, such as rolling electoral registration, that Bill provides for local authorities to pilot innovations in electoral practice and for those successful innovations to be used more generally in elections.
	There are some obvious possibilities, which may or may not commend themselves to the Committee, such as conducting an entire election by postal vote, or over the Internet, or by the telephone, which do not involve a poll in the sense that we normally refer to it. Under the Representation of the People Bill, those will be available for piloting. They will obviously require further legislation if they are to be put into general use. Clearly, such possible innovations could apply to referendums as they could to elections. If the amendment were accepted, it would delete from the scope of the Bill the power to make regulations as to how those alternative ways of casting votes could be used and whether any of those innovations could be used in this context. That would be an unnecessary loss of flexibility. The regulations themselves would have to be tightly written. Nevertheless, I do not think that this Bill should prevent that flexibility applying to referendums.

Baroness Byford: I rise to support my noble friend's amendment. Perhaps the Minister will clarify this point for me. Whatever form one is using, one is actually taking a poll. There is some form of judgment at the end of the day. That surely is a poll. The difficulty is that the words as set out in the Bill assume a poll in the conventional sense and not in ways that may be used in the future. However, at the end of the day, people are giving an opinion, which surely must be a poll.

Baroness Hamwee: I support that view. I have the same difficulty with the provision and was glad to see that an amendment had been tabled by the noble Baroness.
	However, I am slightly more disturbed having heard the Minister's response. I do not want to appear to be a dinosaur, unwilling to contemplate the possibility of new voting methods. However, if there are to be new voting methods, they deserve careful parliamentary scrutiny. They should not be the subject of regulations which may not receive parliamentary scrutiny. If that is so, it does not seem necessary to have these words on the face of the Bill. The changes could be made in legislation introducing new methods of voting.

Baroness Hanham: It is still my belief that the wording is wrong. If any of the innovations described in the Bill are used, those are still a poll. Proxy voting is part of a poll; it is a formal examination of how people want to vote. The provision states that this,
	"does not involve a poll".
	Therefore, it raises the question: when is a poll not a poll, and when is it a fiddle?

Lord Dixon-Smith: I had not expected to intervene in this debate, but I have considerable sympathy with everything that is being said on this side of the Committee. At the very least, in the interests of clarity it would be helpful if the Minister would agree--even if he is not prepared to withdraw the words from the face of the Bill--to take the matter away and examine it to see whether he can return with a more felicitous way of stating what the paragraph attempts to put out. As matters stand, we could debate the issue of when a poll is not a poll, or whether a poll is a poll, until midnight and get no further, and have no greater clarity at the end of the discussion.

Lord Whitty: We could indeed, and those who are fascinated by electoral law may be tempted to do so. However, my understanding of the position under electoral law is that a poll, as tightly defined, means attendance at a polling station. Under provisions in different parts of the Representation of the People Act for a proxy vote or a postal vote, they are to be added to the poll conducted at the polling station. Therefore, we are dealing with a rather tight implication of "poll" as originally defined.
	I reassure noble Lords that, were we to come forward with regulations which applied the clause in relation to referendums and provide innovative means of voting--and the only point under debate is whether, with the passage of the representation of the people legislation, we should include the referendum as one form of election which could be subject to pilot studies in that regard--those regulations would (a) have been subject to the views of the electoral commission and (b) would be subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses. I hope that that provides some assurance to noble Lords to keep the present form of words on the face of the Bill.

Baroness Hanham: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 31 [Power to make incidental, consequential provision etc.]:

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 255:
	Page 15, line 36, at end insert--
	("( ) Before making an order under this section the Secretary of State must consult representatives of local government and of any other persons affected by the proposals.").

Lord Dixon-Smith: Clauses 30 and 31 together, among other provisions, give the Secretary of State power to combine the normal local elections with a local referendum, to take place on the same day at the same time.
	I can applaud and commend the economy in such a move. It may be that, not even being optimistic, we can understand how local electors could separate the two ballot papers and manage that. However, if that kind of combination is to be brought about, we should be sure that at the very least there is thorough consultation with those who might be directly affected by such a proposal, which might well affect an individual local authority. It should be stated on the face of the Bill that the authority should be consulted. The amendment that I have tabled requires the Secretary of State to,
	"consult representatives of local government and ... any other persons affected by the proposals".
	The Minister may assure me that that will occur anyway, and if he does so I shall be happy to hear it. In the meantime, I believe that it is worth putting this requirement on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: I believe that the situation to which the noble Lord refers is already covered. However, the noble Lord must recognise that Clause 31 merely makes incidental, consequential, transitional and supplementary provisions and therefore no new policy is represented in this Bill. The Government already have a concordat with the Local Government Association--to which the clause and no doubt the amendment refer--which is the representative body for local government in England and Wales, to consult on all issues, in particular on developments that directly affect the structure of local government. Therefore, anything of substance that emerges will be covered by that concordat. However, in practice, matters of substance are likely to occur not under this provision but under other clauses which are covered by explicit consultation arrangements. Therefore, on the basis of either the voluntary concordat or other provisions of this Bill the noble Lord's objectives are met.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, which I shall study. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 31 agreed to.
	Clause 32 agreed to.
	Clause 33 [Interpretation of Part II]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 256 and 257:
	Page 16, line 6, at end insert ("unless the context otherwise requires").
	Page 16, leave out line 18.
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 257A not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 258 to 262:
	Page 16, line 34, leave out ("of") and insert ("made by or under").
	Page 16, line 35, leave out ("and 16") and insert ("to 17").
	Page 16, line 35, after ("of") insert (", and Schedule 1 to,").
	Page 17, line 7, leave out ("A local authority's function with respect to") and insert ("Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 does not apply to the function of").
	Page 17, line 8, leave out ("may be discharged only by the local authority").

Lord Whitty: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 258 to 262 en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 263:
	Page 17, line 9, at end insert--
	("( ) Nothing in this Part shall prevent, in the case of a London borough, the person who is referred to in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Local Government Act 1972 as the Mayor of the borough from using the title and style of Mayor.").

Lord Dixon-Smith: Amendment No. 263 is tabled in order to make absolutely certain that nothing in this Bill disturbs the traditional arrangements in London under which a borough has a mayor, albeit not an elected one, who can continue to use that title and style. This is a matter of history and tradition. One can well imagine that in years to come there will be a deal of confusion in local government, not exclusively in London. There will be a Lord Mayor of London, although he represents only the City, and an elected mayor of London. There will also be a mayor of a borough who will fulfil all the traditional roles of a mayor. Further, there will be an elected mayor of a borough. Therefore, it is not an unlikely prospect that for the ordinary elector of London there will be four mayors all of whom will have legitimate authority over him, and that may cause a degree of confusion. I do not regard that as a straightforward situation.
	The scope of this amendment is limited. It may be that in response the noble Lord will tell me that it is unnecessary. However, so far as concerns the people of London, within a particular borough the mayor is their first citizen and an important figurehead within the community. I do not believe that any of us in this Committee, including the Minister, want to erode that situation in anything that we do in this Bill. Of course, out in the country one could have the equally amazing situation of an elected mayor of a county council, an elected mayor of a district council, and an elected town mayor. I suspect that the possibility for confusion there would be equally great. We have not addressed that issue. However, should the Minister choose to cover it in his reply that would be helpful.
	The amendment ensures clarity and that nothing in the Bill disturbs the current arrangements. I am not aware that any of us wish to do so. I believe that it was worth tabling the amendment. I look forward to the Minister's reply. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As the noble Lord acknowledged, we discussed last week the issues surrounding the title of "mayor" in relation to Amendment No. 75, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The amendment would preserve the title of "mayor" for chairmen, or chairs, of London boroughs.
	The Government are strongly of the view that there should be clarity about who is the directly elected mayor where councils adopt such arrangements. Local people need to know who is the elected mayor and therefore who is to be held to account for the services provided by the authority. It is for that reason that the Government believe that where there is an elected mayor the title of "mayor" should be used by that person and not, for example, the chairman, or chair, of the council.
	If the amendment were to be accepted, it would be possible for a London borough to have two mayors. We do not think that that would lead to a position of clarity. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord does not believe it to be necessary to press the amendment.

Baroness Hanham: I believe that this is one area in the Bill--there are many--which will cause enormous consternation. To state that the civic mayor cannot be called "mayor" will challenge the community's feelings on the purpose of the Bill. The name "mayor" is well loved and well recognised. It is well supported in particular in the London boroughs. Mayors are well received. To call a civic mayor "chairman" or "chair" seems to be moving in the wrong direction. I realise that the issue has been discussed previously. I simply wish to put my oar in and say that, if any area will be misunderstood, it will be this one.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I somewhat cautiously put the alternative use of the title "chair" or "chairman", having looked carefully around the Chamber to see which noble Lords and noble Baronesses were in their places.
	Where a London borough, or a district council with borough status does not opt for that model and does not have an elected mayor, it will be able to continue as before. We recognise that, in some cases there is a derivation other than from the borough status alone, for example through ancient local custom, charters, and so on. We believe it is important that people should be able to distinguish the option of the local community for a directly elected mayor with executive powers. I ask the noble Baroness to consider this. In those circumstances, the issue would have been widely discussed and therefore is less likely to cause confusion for the local population.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. I appreciate the need for clarity. If it had not been for that need, we would not have tabled the amendment. We shall study carefully the noble Baroness's response. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 66 [Allowances and pensions for local authority members]:

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 263A:
	Page 41, line 4, at end insert ("including regulations to limit the number of councillors in any authority to whom special responsibility allowances may be paid").

Baroness Hamwee: In moving this amendment, I shall speak to Amendment No. 265A and also Amendment No. 264A, which is an amendment to the Minister's amendment, Amendment No. 264. My noble friend Lord Tope will speak to our two other amendments in the group. Perhaps others would like to speak to their amendments first, so that my noble friend can co-ordinate his remarks.
	As to Amendment No. 263A, I failed to find language that is appropriate to the point. I appreciate that providing regulations to limit the number of councillors to whom special responsibility allowances may be paid might indicate that it is not for a local authority to determine how to deal with such allowances. That is not the case because that, together with other ways of conducting business, is a matter for the local authority.
	I want to see whether the Government have any response to the situation in at least three authorities where special responsibility allowances are paid to all the members of the controlling group. I understand that in a couple of instances, the number of committees was changed to make that possible. The councils brought to my attention were Swansea, Milton Keynes and Aberdeen. Those authorities may take the view that all councillors of the same political persuasion as those running the administration have particular responsibilities different from opposition members. There is something odd and the system is being distorted if it distinguishes between members of political parties. I do not believe that the system was designed for that purpose.
	I was, like others, cheered when the possibility of particular allowances was introduced because it went a little way to recognising the special responsibilities of councillors who undertake arduous and time-consuming jobs. To extend those allowances in the way that at least a small handful of authorities have done is stretching the provision. I hope that there is a way of addressing the problem. I beg to move.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: In speaking to Amendments Nos. 265 and 377, I fully understand that when amendments are submitted, their wording may not entirely achieve the objective.
	I first served on a council 40 years ago when the expenses regime was vastly different from today. There have been great advances, which I have always supported, to make it possible for men and women to serve their community as councillors. I have no objection to that but I refer to a parliamentary Question answered recently by my noble friend's ministerial colleague, Beverley Hughes, in the other place:
	"Our policy, as set out in 'Modern Local Government: In Touch With the People' ... is that financial support for councillors must reinforce the culture of the modern council and address, as far as possible, any disincentives to serving in local politics".--[Official Report, Commons, 24/1/00; WA123W.]
	I live in Loughton in Essex which is around 20 miles from here. It has a town council of 22 members serving a population of 30,000 people. It was set up in 1996 after a period of 63 years during which Loughton had no council of its own. It does good work. It is small in the hierarchy of councils and no great claims are made for its status.
	However, I should like the Minister and his colleagues to pay attention to what I believe to be an anomaly. I have been told that one councillor said that in the three and a half years since the election, he had given 200 hours of his time at council meetings. Others had done the same. We know that nowadays councillors can receive thousands of pounds in allowances to compensate for all kinds of things. However, councillors in a place like Loughton, who live in the town, need to travel around three miles to attend council meetings at the far end of the town. It costs £1 each time they use the bus. But they are not reimbursed because the meetings they attend are inside the area; they do not leave the prescribed area.
	Perhaps noble Lords may say, "What is a pound?". For an elderly person--an old age pensioner--who is giving up his time, who might attend 30 meetings a year, that amounts to £60 in travelling expenses. Again, noble Lords may say, "What is £60? That is not much". Again, for an old age pensioner who is giving up his time, that is a considerable amount. This matter should be examined.
	The amendment I have tabled is attached to changes made in the Local Government Act 1972. In my researches I noted that the then Conservative Minister, Lord Sandbrook, speaking of claims for expenses by councillors generally, stated that:
	"We are all agreed that the allowances should be such that good potential council members are not dissuaded from serving on local councils by financial restraints or worries".--[Official Report, 18/9/72; col. 846.]
	I wonder whether my noble friend sees this as an opportunity to put right an anomaly that has been allowed to fester? I do not believe that town councils will disappear, but I do believe that a sense of injustice and unfairness may creep in, especially as in comparison, others who call themselves councillors in different kinds of councils with different responsibilities still receive recompense for their time and--more importantly--for their travel.
	I know that my noble friend Lord Murray of Epping Forest, who knows Loughton a great deal better than I, may well rise to say a few words in support of this amendment. I simply say to the Minister that there are many councils--I estimate that there could now be 10,000 small parish and town councils--and the expenses would add up. However, that would be nothing against the good will of this non-partisan Government. When this matter was raised in Loughton Town Council there was no party animus. Something would be moved by one party and seconded by others, and I raise this issue in a non-partisan way. In this House one often wonders how one can take advantage of a peg on which to hang something. I do not want to hang the Minister, either out to dry or otherwise. However, I wonder whether he will agree that this is an issue which his colleagues can look at before the next stage of the Bill. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 264, although I believe that the Minister will not speak to it until he officially replies to it.
	Clause 66 concerns giving councillors a fair deal for the amount of work that they put in. I welcome it from that point of view. For a long time councillors have suffered the jibes of whoever was in opposition whenever it was proposed that there should be an increase in allowances. If there was a change of administration then the boot was placed quickly on the other foot. The rise of independent panels which suggest a fair rate of allowance, not dependent on attendance, is a step in the right direction.
	However, I am afraid that Amendment No. 264, which addresses pensions, is probably a step sideways because it singles out executive members for special treatment. Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Minister has been at pains to tell us that other members of the council--the non-executive members--are equally important and will fulfil important roles. Certainly, one can imagine that the chairmen of the overview and scrutiny committee or committees, depending on how many there are, will have their work cut out. If they are doing their work properly, they should have no less an arduous task than the members of the executive. Although they are not making decisions, they are formulating policy and checking up on those decisions. Much of the time they will be the interface with the public which the executive members probably will not be under the models that we have heard described. Therefore, are they not entitled to pensions? If not, I wonder whether the Minister can explain why. Is it due to the fact that their job is less difficult, will take less time or be seen as being less important?
	I believe that there are a number of reasons why the decisions as to who should receive pensions will be left quite rightly to an independent panel, which will be set up locally. However, that panel should have the freedom to look at all the members of the council equally and to decide whether or not a particular post merits a pension. It should not be on the face of the Bill that executive members can receive pensions and other members cannot.
	I should also like to support briefly the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, because I believe that parish councillors are another group of people who often give up substantial amounts of time, particularly the chairmen of parish councils and town councils. As a result, they are frequently out of pocket. Not only have they given up their time but they spend their own money attending meetings, and so on. It is becoming difficult to secure democracy on the cheap. We are in an age when we should not expect democracy to depend on whether or not people can afford to pay their own money. There will never be a representative cross-section of society if we depend on that.
	Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to solve my problems with his Amendment No. 264 and that we can see some equity in the way that councillors are treated, particularly with regard to pensions.

Baroness Thornton: I too wish to ask a question on Amendment No. 264. Of course, I must lend support to my noble friend Lord Graham whom I regard as our shop steward in these matters in any event. In that case, what else can I do but support him?
	The amendment addresses itself to allowances and pensions. The draft regulations address themselves to remuneration panels which are not mentioned in the amendment. Should the Bill not be clearer about the role of remuneration panels in setting the allowances? The local government White Paper said that every council should have such a panel and that the Government would consider proposals in relation to making changes to allowances. They said they would deal with that. But it is not clear on the face of the Bill that those arrangements will be put in place. Therefore, I seek clarification about that link which seems to be missing.

Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My noble friend Lord Graham is too modest to expatiate on his own modesty. Perhaps I may underline the modesty of the amendment proposed. For example, the noble Lord could have referred to telephone bills. He has not done so. He has confined the amendment to dealing with travel expenses. I emphasise to the Committee that that would not cost central government one penny. It would cost local electors a few coppers, but a very few coppers. I am sure that they would not begrudge that in order to make it possible for everybody to accept nomination for election. I hope that the Government will not begrudge it either.

Baroness Hanham: Will the pension schemes and superannuation schemes run by local authorities be authorised to pay pensions to members? If not, the schemes will have to be self-funded and self-financing on an annual basis. If we are not careful we shall encounter the same problems as those encountered by the police with their self-funding pension schemes.

Lord Tope: As suggested by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, I rise to speak on Amendment No. 265A and shall attempt to do so in the co-ordinated fashion promised by my noble friend. The effect of the amendment would be to remove the power of the Secretary of State to specify maximum rates for travel and subsistence allowances for councillors. That power is something of an anomaly these days because there are no longer any government-imposed limits on local schemes of allowances, subject to the provisions in this Bill relating to an independent panel.
	That is a real issue and a real problem but it is an anomaly because the operation of government-imposed maximum rates has presented practical difficulties for local authorities and particularly for individual councillors for many years. Typically and inevitably, maximum rates for overnight accommodation do not keep pace with the prevailing rates in major cities and particularly in London, Europe's most expensive city--of which I see the noble Lord, Lord Smith, has some experience--which many councillors must visit when attending Local Government Association meetings. Those maximum rates do not keep pace with the prevailing rates and that often results in members being out of pocket when staying away from home on council business.
	Similarly, it is nonsense that central government these days should specify maximum rates for councillors' meals; namely, how much councillors may be allowed to claim for breakfast, lunch or dinner. Councils are now multi-million pound businesses and really should be given the power and authority to determine reasonable amounts for such allowances. That is an anomaly and I hope that the Government will now take this opportunity to correct it.
	I turn now to Amendment No. 264A. I assume that it is in order for me to seek to amend an amendment to which the Minister has not yet spoken. I shall do so anyway. It relates to a subject which has been dear to my heart for years and years in local government; that is, cycle allowances. I say immediately that if this amendment is passed, it will be much too late for me but it will be in plenty of time for many others.
	Members of your Lordships' House may be paid a cycle allowance. I have no doubt that many of your Lordships claim it regularly. Members of the other place may be paid a cycle allowance. Employees of local authorities may all be paid a cycle allowance, if appropriate. The one category of people who may not lawfully be paid a cycle allowance is that of elected councillors. That is ludicrous. Many councillors of all parties have been in the forefront of promoting the green agenda, green transport, and, in particular, the promotion and encouragement of safe cycling.
	Many councillors use bicycles as their preferred means of transport and sometimes as a means of demonstrating in a practical way what they advocate that their councillors and local residents should be doing. However, they are in effect penalised for doing so. Were they to use a car, they could be paid a reasonably generous mileage allowance. Because they choose to use a cycle, which is much more environmentally friendly, they cannot be paid an allowance. I do not claim that, if we were suddenly to receive cycle allowances, all councillors would take to their bicycles. Sadly, I fear that that is probably not the case. However, it is clearly an anomaly that they cannot be paid anything.
	I have raised this on a number of occasions over the years. The answer I have received from successive governments is that they recognise this to be an anomaly but it needs primary legislation to correct it. This is our opportunity. We have the primary legislation. It is a small amendment and one which would correct an obvious anomaly which singles out councillors for no apparent reason.
	In the past, governments have been able to say that that cannot be done because it needs primary legislation. Now we have this opportunity, I hope the Government will take it. If they choose not to do so, now and in future they will have to explain to councillors and others why they are singling out councillors as being unable to be paid cycle allowances. I do not think this Government--or, for that matter, the previous one, but certainly this one--would wish to do that. Therefore, I feel rather more optimistic than usual when moving or speaking to an amendment that we shall receive a positive response. Both amendments are fairly minor but significant in their consequences. I hope the Government will consider them and feel able to respond positively.

Lord Smith of Leigh: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 264 and Chapter 15 of the draft regulations. Both provisions seek to recompense people who serve their local communities. I agree with my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton, who referred to people who work at parish and town council level who equally try to serve their public.
	I agree with the statement in Chapter 15 which suggests that we abolish the attendance allowance for local councillors. My own council did that last year on the advice of an independent panel which made a recommendation on pay. However, I suggest to my noble friend the Minister that there are occasions when an attendance allowance may be required. There are a number of occasions in my council when we expect groups of councillors to make quasi-judicial decisions on matters such as applications for village greens. Such matters can last over several days or weeks when people give evidence and so forth. We expect small groups of members to attend. I hope that perhaps we can consider recompensing the members who act on those occasions.
	I support the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, concerning pension rights. The Bill as drafted differentiates between executive members and other members of the council. The provision recognises that people who serve on large authorities make sacrifices as regards their career and pension rights. That could be true whether people are serving at executive level or even senior levels. Certainly those who have played a lead in the scrutiny roles of local authorities will be equally busy as executive members. I hope that that matter will also be considered. We are not asking for them to receive pension rights but for the independent panels which will be set up to review that point.
	I support the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that, when setting rates for local councillors, departments do not always upgrade them in line with inflation. Certainly, hotel prices in London are somewhat more than I am able to claim as a local councillor from Wigan.
	The one thing that is different these days is that, if one travels by Virgin trains, one no longer pays for food. We may arrive late, due to sheep on the line or numerous other excuses, but we are provided with free food. That food may not be worth eating: certainly some of the meals I have had were not worth eating. In an earlier comment, a reference was made to making meals with one's partner. I believe I am booked in for next Wednesday; that is my earliest engagement in that regard.
	On a more serious note, there may be occasions when councils need to recompense non-executive members who are putting a lot of work into quasi-judicial work on the council, which the Government recognise is an important role. Secondly, perhaps we can consider extending pensions beyond executive members. We would be grateful for that.

Lord Whitty: Perhaps I should start by setting out what Amendment No. 264--the Government's new clause--attempts to do, which will wrap up some of the concerns expressed during the debate.
	The policy in Amendment No. 264 arises from the document Local Leadership, Local Choice, referred to earlier in the debate. There are basically two limbs to the policy; it is proposed, first, that the attendance allowance should be abolished because in many cases it represents a perverse incentive; and, secondly, that there should be other changes, including making the payments to some councillors pensionable, aimed at recognising the role that they play and the expenses they incur.
	In order for that to be implemented and to prevent some of the political and internal problems that arise from payment of allowances and pensions, each council is required to establish an independent panel to make its recommendations on allowances and pensionability. Changes to an authority's allowance scheme should only be made after recommendations have been made by such a panel and an authority may only decide that a member's allowance shall be pensionable if that panel so recommends.
	Furthermore, the amendment gives the Secretary of State the power to issue statutory guidelines to underline those arrangements. The bulk of the policy will be delivered in regulations made under this clause. Those will be detailed arrangements which will need to change from time to time in accordance with the approach under current regulations.
	Finally, the amendment clarifies the ability of councils to make payments to councillors who necessarily incur expenditure on the care of children or other dependants in the course of their duties as councillors. I know that that provision will be widely welcomed. It is therefore a whole new system introducing an independent panel, which a number of councils have already adopted, and a new system of defining who shall be paid allowances and what payments shall be pensionable.
	In relation to each of the amendments, perhaps I should start with the good news. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, so bowled me over with his enthusiasm for the bicycle that I accept--wearing my integrated transport hat--that there is an injustice in this regard and that we should look at it. I hope he will accept that I will take the matter away and consider how best we can remedy the anomaly. If we were to make a concession in that area, then I hope the noble Lord will consider whether or not it can apply to him.

Baroness Hamwee: I wonder whether I can suggest to the Minister--I do not know whether my noble friend made this comment having himself in mind--that, if this amendment were to be incorporated in the Bill, we should make sure it refers to "cycles" rather than "bicycles" because tricycles ought to be the subject of allowances as well.

Lord Whitty: I shall need to take advice on that point. I suspect that there will not be an enormous implication for public expenditure if we relate it to tricycles; nevertheless, we shall need to consider it.
	However, I am afraid that I cannot be quite so forthcoming as regards the other amendments in this group. Perhaps I may, first, address Amendment No. 264, which would give the Secretary of State the power to limit the number of councillors in any authority who may receive a special responsibility allowance. I believe that all this will be wrapped up in relation to the independent panel. Without passing judgment on any particular council that has been mentioned, I appreciate that there is an identified problem here in that some authorities seem to pay this allowance to a rather large proportion of their members. I believe that the independent element in the system will take care of such anomalies and potential abuses.
	I turn next to the amendment tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Graham which relates to parish councils. I take note of some of my noble friend's points in this respect. Of course, a parish council may pay its chair an allowance to meet the expenses of his office and parish councillors are entitled to travel, subsistence and attendance allowance, or financial loss in respect of certain duties, but, as my noble friend said, they are outside of the parish or town council area. We think that there would probably be few cases where there would be serious expenditure considerations, but we will look into the matter. I have to say that the chances of movement in that area are not guaranteed. I shall need to seek further advice on the matter.
	As regards Amendment No. 265A, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the Committee may recall that the White Paper committed the Government to a review of all current rules on travel and subsistence, as well as on compensation, for co-optees. The Government are attracted to the proposition from the noble Baroness that we should not be in a position to set ceilings for travel and subsistence. We believe that the method of determining allowances should very much be a matter for local decision, based on the independent panel. We need a thorough review, as envisaged by the White Paper. We do not wish to pre-empt that review; but, nevertheless, the objectives of the proposed new clause will be taken care of in that review.
	A number of other points were made in relation to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, as regards clarifying where remuneration should be available, and in relation to the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Thornton on the role of remuneration allowances and panels. I believe that the amendment we have already brought forward clarifies much of that area of policy. Nevertheless, with the agreement of noble Lords, I should like to consider further the various points that have been raised in that respect to see whether the powers would permit a rather different policy to be implemented. If the Committee will bear with me, I shall consult certain people on allowances and return to the matter at a later stage of the Bill's proceedings.
	Allowances within councils are a fairly emotive subject, but this is not something that has affected me very directly in recent years. There are some serious problems to be addressed, some of which need to be addressed in our review. I hope that I have said enough to convince the Committee that their particular concerns will be taken care of in the course of that review under the new system. I trust, therefore, that they will not press for changes--

Lord Graham of Edmonton: Before my noble friend the Minister sits down, I should like to say that I am grateful for what I would call a glimmer of light and hope in that he is prepared to look at the matter. However, I hope that he will bear in mind the infinitesimal sums of money that the public will bear. As my noble friend Lord Murray said, what we want is the sanction, the right: we want the words that will enable the local council to reimburse people their bus fare. We are not talking about thousands of pounds of allowance and we are not talking about paying massive hotel bills. We are talking about ordinary little people whom we are trying to encourage to run literally their parish council.
	I have not had the pleasure of serving on a parish council: mine was the London Borough of Enfield, of which I had to honour to be leader in the 1960s. It is a different world. People who serve on parish councils are entitled to equity and justice. They do not want payments or allowances. They want to be reimbursed for the cost of a bus fare. I am grateful that the Minister is prepared to reconsider the matter. I hope that he will recognise that he could bring enormous satisfaction to thousands of people who at present cannot legally claim their bus fares when attending meetings on behalf of their communities.

Baroness Hanham: I hope that the Minister will answer the question I asked; namely, whether, as members had not contributed to the superannuation pension funds of local authorities, they will be entitled under legislation to receive pensions out of those superannuation funds, which are largely for the staff?

Lord Whitty: It is intended that they would be paid through the local government scheme. Therefore an employer contribution would need to be paid in respect of those individuals who would be pensionable under the new service. It may be helpful if I write to the noble Baroness explaining the matter in more detail.

Baroness Hamwee: This is a difficult area. The exchange of views that has just taken place reminds me of the problems that have arisen with regard to the Police Service and the Fire Service where pensions comprise an enormous part of an authority's budget. There are important issues with regard to who has contributed to the pensions which have to be paid.
	Much of what the Minister has said is welcome. I am particularly glad that we appear to have made some progress on behalf of those who use cycle transport when carrying out their duties. It seems to me that a number of the points that have been made should be capable of being taken forward without waiting for the review. I refer to the upper limit on expenses in this regard. I shall not ask the Minister to respond to that point now. However, I leave him with the thought that there may be many areas where local authorities resent the interference of central government with regard to issues connected with allowances, expenses and other such matters. To be able to look to central government to take a decision on these matters away from the "heat" of a particular local authority--clearly that would happen under the arrangements which are proposed--would be welcome. If such an arrangement could be put in place quickly, in particular in regard to expenses, that would be welcomed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 264:
	Leave out Clause 66 and insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:ALLOWANCES AND PENSIONS FOR CERTAIN LOCAL AUTHORITY MEMBERS
	(".--(1) The provision which may be made by regulations under section 7 of the Superannuation Act 1972 (superannuation of persons employed in local government service etc) includes provision for or in connection with the provision of pensions, allowances or gratuities to or in respect of such members of an executive of a local authority as may be prescribed by the regulations.
	(2) In subsection (1) "executive" and "local authority" have the same meaning as in Part II of this Act.
	(3) Section 18 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (schemes for basic, attendance and special responsibility allowances for local authority members) is amended as follows.
	(4) At the beginning of subsection (1) there is inserted "Subject to subsection (1A)," and after that subsection there is inserted--
	"(1A) In relation to a district council, county council, county borough council or London borough council, subsection (1) above shall have effect with the omission of paragraph (b)."
	(5) After subsection (2) there is inserted--
	"(2A) Regulations under this section may authorise or require a scheme made by a district council, county council, county borough council or London borough council to include provision for the payment to members of the council of allowances in respect of such expenses of arranging for the care of children or dependants as are necessarily incurred in the carrying out of their duties as members."
	(6) In subsection (3), for "and (2)" there is substituted "to (2A)".
	(7) After subsection (3) there is inserted--
	"(3A) Regulations under this section may make provision for or in connection with--
	(a) enabling district councils, county councils, county borough councils or London borough councils which are operating executive arrangements to determine which members of the executive are to be entitled to pensions, allowances or gratuities,
	(b) treating the basic allowance and the special responsibility allowance as amounts in respect of which such pensions, allowances or gratuities are payable.
	(3B) Regulations under this section may make provision for or in connection with requiring every district council, county council, county borough council and London borough council to establish and maintain a panel which is to have such functions in relation to allowances, or pensions, allowances or gratuities, payable to members of the council as may be prescribed by the regulations.
	(3C) Regulations under subsection (3B) above may include provision--
	(a) with respect to the number of persons who may or must be appointed to the panel of a council,
	(b) with respect to the persons who may or must be appointed to the panel of a council,
	(c) for or in connection with the appointment by councils of joint panels,
	(d) for or in connection with enabling the panel of a council to consider and make recommendations to the council on the level of allowances payable to members of the council,
	(e) for or in connection with enabling the panel of a council which is operating executive arrangements to consider, and make recommendations to the council on, which members of the executive are to be entitled to pensions, allowances or gratuities."
	(8) In subsection (4), for the word "and" at the end of paragraph (b) there is substituted--
	"(ba) make provision with respect to the amendment, revocation or replacement of a scheme made by a relevant authority under the regulations; and".
	(9) After subsection (5) there is inserted--
	"(5A) In making or operating any scheme authorised or required by regulations under this section, a district council, county council, county borough council or London borough council shall have regard to any guidance for the time being issued by the Secretary of State.
	(5B) In this section "executive" and "executive arrangements" have the same meaning as in Part II of the Local Government Act 2000."").
	[Amendment No. 264A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 264, not moved.]
	On Question, Amendment No. 264 agreed to.
	Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 265 and 265A not moved.]
	Clause 67 agreed to.
	Clause 34 [Principles governing conduct of members of relevant authorities]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 266 to 268:
	Page 17, line 14, after ("members") insert ("and co-opted members").
	Page 17, line 16, after ("members") insert ("and co-opted members").
	Page 18, line 6, at end insert--
	("(6) In this Part "co-opted member", in relation to a relevant authority, means a person who is not a member of the authority but who--
	(a) is a member of any committee or sub-committee of the authority, or
	(b) is a member of, and represents the authority on, any joint committee or joint sub-committee of the authority,
	and who is entitled to vote on any question which falls to be decided at any meeting of that committee or sub-committee.").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 35 [Model code of conduct]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 269 to 271:
	Page 18, line 8, after ("members") insert ("and co-opted members").
	Page 18, line 11, after ("members") insert ("and co-opted members").
	Page 18, line 36, after ("concerned") insert ("or the Partnership Council (as the case may be)").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 36 [Duty of relevant authorities to adopt codes of conduct]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 272 and 273:
	Page 18, line 44, after ("members") insert ("and co-opted members").
	Page 19, line 16, after ("members") insert ("and co-opted members").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 273A:
	Page 19, line 23, after ("newspapers") insert (", which may be or include a newspaper published by the authority,").

Baroness Hamwee: Amendment No. 273A seeks clarification of what is a "newspaper" for the purposes of Clause 36(5). The provision requires a local authority, after adopting or revising a code of conduct, to publish certain matters in a newspaper circulating in its area. My amendment proposes that such a newspaper may include or may be a newspaper published by the authority. In raising this point I am aware of the issues concerning what is proper publication of indicators and reaching performance indicators where local authorities are required to publish details of how they have met certain targets.
	It may well be that a local authority newspaper which is delivered free to every household will have a better circulation than a commercial newspaper. In moving the amendment I seek to learn the Government's intention in this matter. I hope that they will feel able, if not to accept the wording, at least to accept the spirit of this amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, adoption of the amendment would mean the Bill being amended in order that information regarding the adoption of a code of conduct would be published in a newspaper published by the authority alone. While we would certainly encourage local authorities to circulate their code of conduct through their own publications--the Bill as drafted would not prevent that--we are wary of including an amendment that could reduce the requirement for publication of information on the adoption of a code of conduct solely to a newspaper published by the authority. I can see a position arising where an authority may be tempted to publish even though the circulation of the newspaper is based on membership of the electoral roll. That can exclude people who are new to the area and people working in the area and can be limiting.
	I should remind the noble Baroness that we are not asking for a large item to be published in a newspaper. We are asking only that information about the code being adopted and where it can be seen is published. In the light of that and the reassurance that there is no need for a specific amendment which requires a local authority to publish information about the availability of the code in one of its own newspapers as well, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Hamwee: I take the point that one has to be careful about using an authority's own publication, but it seems to me that it is doing no more than meeting a bit of fine print to have a small advertisement in a commercial newspaper which is unlikely to be read by anyone other than its most devoted reader. It might be more effective to have the information published in an authority's own newspaper.
	As I was speaking, it occurred to me that there might be a mechanism allowing the standards board to assess the means of publication proposed by an authority. It is not a major issue but one which is worth considering. Perhaps I may leave that thought with the Minister and with myself because it has only just occurred to me. It may be that we can discuss the matter after this stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 274:
	Page 19, line 29, at end insert--
	("(iii) specifies the address of their principal office, and").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 37 [Duty to comply with code of conduct]:
	[Amendment No. 274A not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 275 to 277:
	Page 20, line 13, at end insert--
	("( ) A person elected as a member of a relevant authority to which section 83 of that Act does not apply may not act in that office unless he has given the authority a written undertaking that in performing his functions he will observe the authority's existing code of conduct under section 36.").
	Page 20, line 15, at end insert ("after a member of the authority has begun to act in that office").
	Page 20, line 16, leave out ("each member of the authority") and insert ("he").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 277A not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 278 to 280:
	Page 20, line 22, at end insert--
	("( ) Any person appointed as a co-opted member of a relevant authority may not act as such unless he has given the authority a written undertaking that in performing his functions he will observe the authority's existing code of conduct under section 36.
	( ) Where a relevant authority adopts or revises a code of conduct under section 36 after a co-opted member of the authority has begun to act as such--
	(a) he must, before the end of the period of two months beginning with the date on which the code of conduct is adopted or revised, give to the authority a written undertaking that in performing his functions he will observe the code or revised code, and
	(b) if he fails to do so, he is to cease to be a co-opted member of the authority at the end of that period.").
	Page 20, line 30, after ("members") insert ("and co-opted members").
	Page 20, line 33, after ("members") insert ("and co-opted members").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 280A not moved.]
	Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 38 [Standards committees]:

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendment No. 281:
	Page 20, line 38, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (1A),").

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: In moving Amendment No. 281, I shall speak to the other amendments in the group. We want to ensure that the same high standards of conduct apply to all local authority members. Local people must be able to trust their councils to serve them properly. A consistent conduct framework that applies to all levels of local government is vital to achieving this.
	Clause 34 lists the relevant authorities to which the general principles, and hence the code of conduct, apply. Parish councils, joint authorities, police authorities, fire authorities, national park authorities and the Broads Authority are included in the list. However, Clause 38 of the Bill, as currently drafted, excludes parish councils and all the other authorities I have listed from the requirement to establish separate standards committees. The original reason for this was to avoid placing an extra administrative financial burden on these relatively small councils.
	Amendment No. 282 and the consequential amendments extend the requirement to establish standards committees to all the relevant committees listed in Clause 34 of the Bill. Amendment No. 307 achieves an anomaly whereby the parishes within the framework would not, because of the varying size and character--in England alone there are more than 10,000--and without overburdening themselves be able to set up an arrangement under these proposals.
	Amendment No. 307 achieves that by providing that every district council within which parish councils are situated should carry out the functions of a standards committee on their behalf, either within their own committee or within a sub-committee set up specially to consider parish council conduct issues. It must be subject to consultation and agreement with the parishes involved. The amendment further provides that at least one parish member must be present when the committee or sub-committee discusses parish issues.
	The final piece of the jigsaw for parish councils is the provision of a monitoring officer. Parishes are not currently required to appoint such officers, but the monitoring officer has an important part to play in the operation of the new ethical framework. Amendments Nos. 361 and 362 therefore provide that the monitoring officer of the appropriate district or unitary council will take on similar functions in relation to parishes in their area. I beg to move.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: I wish to refer to Amendment No. 282, which concerns relevant authorities. I ask the Minister a simple question: what consideration have the Government given to the impact of those proposals on police authorities? I chair a police authority and I am a deputy chair of the Association of Police Authorities, so I have something of a vested interest in her answer. I assure the Committee that all police authorities are committed to high standards in public life; in fact, we feel it incumbent on ourselves to set an example because we expect absolute integrity and professionalism from our police services.
	Police authorities throughout the country greatly welcome the Bill generally. But we are different from other local authorities. We are single service, single purpose authorities and we are independent of local government. Having worked with the Government in that area, we believed that they had listened to our concerns about the excessive bureaucracy that would be created were such measures imposed on us. That is why, when the Bill originally came to the House, it excluded police authorities from the obligation to have standards committees. It was rather a shock to discover that the Government had reversed their position.
	My association has made it clear on numerous occasions that we are only too willing to help the Government to reach sensible arrangements to embrace the spirit of the proposals. But the problem may be that proper consultation has not perhaps taken place across government departments. Has the Home Office been consulted on the new move? Equally importantly, the provisions before us do not currently apply to the new Metropolitan Police Authority or even the service authorities for the National Crime Squad, of which I am a member also, or the National Criminal Intelligence Service. Should it not do so?
	Furthermore, what about Wales? Responsibility for policing the area has not been devolved to the National Assembly, yet where will Welsh police authorities fit into the framework? I wish to work with the Minister in a positive and constructive way to try to resolve those issues and I offer to put my services at her disposal.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I assure the noble Baroness that the Home Office has been consulted. However, I guarantee and undertake to consider carefully the points that she raised. Amendment No. 282 and the consequential amendments extend the requirements to establish standards committees and, as the noble Baroness says, include the police authorities. Following the consultation that took place, we believe the setting up of standards committees within such authorities as police authorities is unlikely to be as onerous as was originally believed. It would indeed be possible under the legislation as amended for the whole authority, with the addition of an independent member, to act as a standards committee if the authority so decided. If it was felt appropriate, through correspondence or meetings, to continue examining the points of concern raised by the noble Baroness, I should be only too happy to undertake to do so.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I wish to address Amendment No. 307, which is grouped with Amendment No. 281. Why have the Government chosen district councils to operate the standards committees on behalf of parish councils? Having been a member of a parish council, a district council and a county council, I can see why the National Association of Local Councils is worried by the fact that district councils are to be the operators of the standards committees. The functions of district and parish councils are more likely to overlap. In fact, more district councillors are parish councillors than are county councillors. Some districts have devolved certain planning functions to parish councils. Some parish councils have housing allocation rights to social housing within their parishes and district councils may also, through their housing needs register, have a part of that. Such connections are less close with regard to county and district councils.
	Planning and housing are probably the two most contentious areas when it comes to interests which should be declared but sometimes are not. Therefore, I believe that the standards committees should operate at county level for the parish councils. It should also be remembered that the local associations of local councils are set up on a county-wide and not a district-wide basis. A collection of parishes will have its association on that county-wide basis and therefore it would be a more natural association if the county were the parent standards committee for all of the parishes.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: In response to the final point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, it is my understanding that not all parish councils are in membership of the county branches within a particular county area. There can be a very large number of councils within a county area. That would therefore make the task of a committee quite onerous at county council level.
	I appreciate the point that has been raised but I would draw attention to the fact that, within a sub-committee set up specifically to consider parish council conduct issues--that has to be subject to consultation and agreement with parish councils--it would be possible to have regard to the concerns that were raised. Close functional links are helpful, not unhelpful, in many ways. There can be a problem with counties. For example, in north Yorkshire there are almost 900 parish councils. We accept that a degree of co-operation will be needed between districts and their parishes to make the provision work smoothly.
	I shall consider carefully the points raised by the noble Baroness. However, I do not say that in the context of believing that we would wish to change our position on this matter.

Baroness Byford: Perhaps I may add my voice to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. I have been in contact with local councils serving both towns and the country. They state clearly that they are concerned about the direct link to district councils. But I am somewhat relieved by what the Minister has just said. Therefore, I shall save my remarks until I have had a chance to read Hansard and then may come back to this matter.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendments Nos. 282 to 287:
	Page 20, line 38, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant").
	Page 20, line 40, leave out ("section 39") and insert ("this Part").
	Page 20, line 40, at end insert--
	("(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to a parish council or community council.").
	Page 20, line 41, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant").
	Page 20, line 43, leave out ("subsection (5)(a))") and insert ("any provision made by virtue of subsection (5)(a) or (6)(a))").
	Page 20, line 44, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 287A:
	Page 21, line 1, leave out ("one person who is not a member, or an officer,") and insert ("a majority of persons who are not members or officers").

Baroness Hamwee: The amendment relates to standards committees. The Bill provides that a standards committee must include,
	"at least two members of the authority, and ... at least one person who is not a member, or an officer, of that or any other local authority".
	The amendment suggests that that balance may not be appropriate.
	The possibility of the majority of the committee being members of an authority may not be right. The amendment proposes that, rather than have a single person who is "independent"--I use the term as shorthand--adequately fulfilling the provision, it would be more appropriate to have a majority of people who are not members or officers.
	It is important not only that standards committees operate properly--using the term to mean "with propriety"--but that they are seen to achieve the job that they set out to do. There should be no suggestion that, because the committees include members of an authority, they are almost by definition and from the outset tainted. It might be more appropriate to show the world that the standards committee has a majority of independent members who do not have the kind of vested interests that the public might regard members of the authority as having. I beg to move.

Lord Filkin: I am minded that the provisions relating to the standards board and the adjudication panel have changed considerably since the publication of the draft Bill. In the draft Bill the board was very much concerned with investigating individual cases of misconduct. Under the Bill as it now stands the board has a wider remit to consider a range of guidance-making powers and will administer the adjudication process as well as overseeing investigations into misconduct as originally intended.
	In those circumstances, I wonder whether the wider remit that is now given to the board under the terms of the Bill might benefit from the setting out of some over-arching or guiding purpose to inform its work, or to ensure that it pays due regard to the wider responsibilities conferred on it. That might be a way of introducing a broad purpose or function for the board, perhaps to uphold the principles of conduct set out under Clause 34.

Lord Whitty: In relation to the noble Lord's last point, it is true that some of the functions of the standards board have changed. Consideration of its over-arching objectives may well be appropriate. Perhaps I may take the matter away and return to noble Lords on that point.
	Our approach in the Bill is to provide as much flexibility as possible at local level. Therefore, the provisions on the face of the Bill and the regulations would provide for a wide range of circumstances with minimum criteria on membership, which would prevent, for example, a mayor being elected or an executive member chairing a committee, and provide for at least one independent member. It does not preclude a majority of independent members. However, we felt that in this area it would be appropriate to leave the exact composition of the standards committee to local circumstances. There are sufficient safeguards in the provisions as a whole to ensure that councils are guided in a reasonable way but retain choice as to the precise composition. The Secretary of State has power to make regulations in this area, although our preferred approach is not to be too prescriptive. We shall review the matter in the light of experience. If it proves necessary to be more prescriptive in relation to the number of independent members, we shall do so by regulation rather than on the face of the Bill.

Baroness Hamwee: The Government do not want to be too prescriptive but have prescribed that the standards committee should include at least two members of the local authority and one person who is not. If the Government want to leave it to each authority, possibly under some kind of overarching guidance from the standards board as the Minister suggested, the logic of it is that this provision merely requires one member of the authority and one independent member. I am at a loss to understand that approach. The words used by the Minister do not appear to be reflected in the provisions of the Bill that the Committee is asked to address.
	Nor is it appropriate--the Minister draws my attention to this matter--that under subsection (3) there is a requirement as to the composition of a standards committee and in subsection (5) the Secretary of State may make regulations for the composition of standards committees. I had initially read it as meaning that the regulations to be made under subsection (5) could not override the primary legislation in subsection (3).
	I end by being more rather than less concerned. However, this is not an area in which we seek to lock horns with the Government. By and large, we support this part of the Bill, but it is important that the details are correct. I do not pursue the point at this moment, but I invite the noble Lord to reflect on whether the answer that he has given is supported by the words that the Committee is being asked to agree.

Lord Whitty: Perhaps I may seek to clarify the matter. The ability to make regulations does not override the provisions on the face of the Bill which are the minima. The Secretary of State can make more substantial regulations.

Baroness Hamwee: One supposes that the Secretary of State could reverse the balance between members of the authority and independent members, which I sought to do. I believe that to have that balance on the face of the Bill is a more straightforward approach. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 288 to 292:
	Page 21, line 2, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant").
	Page 21, line 3, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant").
	Page 21, line 8, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant").
	Page 21, line 16, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant").
	Page 21, line 20, leave out from second ("of") to end of line 21 and insert ("such committees").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 293:
	Page 21, line 21, at end insert--
	("(6A) The Standards Board for England--
	(a) may issue guidance with respect to the size and composition of standards committees of local authorities in England, and
	(b) must send a copy of any such guidance to the Secretary of State.
	(6B) The Standards Board for Wales--
	(a) may issue guidance with respect to the size and composition of standards committees of local authorities in Wales, and
	(b) must send a copy of any such guidance to the National Assembly for Wales.").

Lord Whitty: Amendment No. 293 is part of a separate group and I speak briefly to it. This amendment is concerned with part of the provisions that deal with the standards board. In addition to investigating breaches of codes of conduct, we envisage that the standards board will have an important role in best practice, to which my noble friend Lord Filkin has just referred. The power to issue guidance on the size and composition of standards committees is part of that role. Once the basic framework is in force the standards board will be able to issue further guidance, for example on the details of the appointments process for independent members, suitable membership balance and so on. This is guidance short of regulation, as we debated in the context of a previous amendment. The Secretary of State will still be able to make regulations, but the standards board can issue guidance in this area.
	The other two amendments in this group, Amendments Nos. 310 and 313, serve to clarify that the standards board may publish any guidance it issues on the conduct of members. That guidance may be issued to an individual authority, a group of authorities or local authorities generally. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 294 to 296:
	Page 21, line 22, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant").
	Page 21, line 24, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant").
	Page 21, line 29, leave out subsection (9).
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Cox: I understand that by pre-emption, with Amendment No. 296 agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 296A.

[Amendment No. 296A not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 297:
	Page 21, line 38, after ("committee") insert ("of a relevant authority").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 297A:
	Page 21, line 40, at end insert--
	("( ) Nothing in this section has the effect of abolishing existing parish council powers and delegated functions.").

Baroness Byford: We on this side of the Chamber have been concerned by reports that the Secretary of State at the DETR has ambitions to abolish all 10,000 parish councils in England. The noble Lord, Lord Graham--he is no longer in his place--touched on the issue when using the phrase "if" they were allowed to continue. He, therefore, has heard rumblings.
	The matter was first reported in October of last year and reiterated on 23rd January this year in a Sunday Express article headed "Parish Councils face axe". Some 10,000 parish councils cover hamlets, small villages, large villages and towns as big as Hereford, Lichfield and Weston-Super-Mare. Together they are responsible for some 15.8 million people and are a working example of devolution at the lowest possible level.
	The fact that this Bill carries no reference to parish councils has alarmed citizens throughout the country. It has attracted cynosure from no less a body than the National Association of Local Councils, to which we referred earlier. Their influence may have permeated the corridors of power, as I note that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has tabled a lengthy and related amendment.
	Mr Meacher stated that Her Majesty's Government are more in favour of neighbourhood fora than parish councils. However, I have difficulty in embracing the concept of a code of conduct being applied to a talking shop. Presumably that is why neighbourhood fora are not covered in this Bill. If the principle of local acceptance of local responsibility has any importance in this Government's scheme of things, the Minister must accept that parish councils play a vital role, particularly in rural affairs. Those who live in the countryside are subject to the same law, statutes and--alas, sometimes--European directives as those who dwell in large towns and cities.
	Codes of conduct are all the rage at the moment and may turn out to be shortlasting, but to exclude parish councils from this clause implies that someone feels the latter are of no value. Perhaps the Minister, especially in the light of Amendment No. 307--we touched on it a little earlier--will interpret Mr Meacher's pronouncements for us. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that we are even more concerned by the rumours in such papers as the Sunday Express, to which she referred, knowing them to be false and knowing that the Government have absolutely no such plans. The fact that during the course of legislation parish councils have been treated differently with regard to standards committees is a recognition that they are different, not that they are of no value or in any way less important. I assure the noble Baroness from my background of the very rural county of Lancashire that I am fully aware of the nature of the role fulfilled by parish councils.
	Clause 38 of the Bill sets out the requirements for local authorities to establish a standards committee. Amendment No. 297A would add a new subsection at the end of the clause specifying that nothing in that section would abolish any existing parish council powers or delegated functions. I should like to reassure the noble Baroness that in introducing a new ethical framework for local government we have no intention to reduce or abolish the powers of parish councils or the functions delegated to them. There is certainly no such suggestion in Clause 38 but I recognise that it does not make suitable provision for standards committees for parish councils--which was the reason for tabling Amendment No. 307, which sets out the detailed arrangements. Amendment No. 297A is therefore not required and I beg the noble Baroness to withdraw it. I hope that she will join me in making sure in future that the Sunday Express and other newspapers are properly informed of Government policy.

Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for her robust reply. I obviously read the newspapers and sometimes treat stories with great scepticism, but it is important to clarify the matter in respect of not only that but other articles. At a fringe meeting attended by Mr. Meacher at last year's Labour Party conference, such views were expressed and discussed.
	Earlier, I said that my amendment was probably not in the right place. It was difficult to find the correct location, so I am grateful to the Minister for her tolerant response. Many amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, respond to conversations with local councils, for which I am grateful. When the Bill was published, it did not give that recognition--which was the theme of my amendment. I heard the Minister's reply and will certainly read Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 39 [Functions of standards committees]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 298 to 302:
	Page 21, line 41, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant").
	Page 21, line 44, after ("members") insert ("and co-opted members").
	Page 22, line 1, after ("members") insert ("and co-opted members").
	Page 22, line 4, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant").
	Page 22, line 8, after ("members") insert ("and co-opted members").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 303:
	Page 22, line 9, leave out from ("conduct") to end of line 10.

Lord Whitty: The Bill provides for ethical standards officers to determine whether a case should be referred to an authority's standards committee. Amendments Nos. 328 and 335 change that, so the ethical standards officer will instead refer a case to the authority's monitoring officer. Under the new ethical framework, the monitoring officer will have responsibility for probity within the authority, including the provision of support to the standards committee--and so will be the person best placed to handle issues raised by the standards board.
	Amendment No. 373 amends Section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to ensure that the chief executive is not appointed as the authority's monitoring officer, for obvious reasons. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 304 to 306:
	Page 22, line 11, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant").
	Page 22, line 14, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant").
	Page 22, line 17, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 307:
	After Clause 39, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:STANDARDS COMMITTEES OR SUB-COMMITTEES FOR PARISH COUNCILS
	(".--(1) A standards committee of a district council is to have the same functions in relation to--
	(a) the parish councils for which the district council are the responsible authority, and
	(b) the members of those parish councils,
	as the standards committee has under section 39(1) and (2) in relation to the district council and the members of the district council.
	(2) A standards committee of a unitary county council is to have the same functions in relation to--
	(a) the parish councils for which the county council are the responsible authority, and
	(b) the members of those parish councils,
	as the standards committee has under section 39(1) and (2) in relation to the county council and the members of the county council.
	(3) A standards committee of a district council or unitary county council may appoint a sub-committee for the purpose of discharging all of the functions conferred on the standards committee by this section.
	(4) In deciding whether it will be their standards committee, or a sub-committee of their standards committee, which is to discharge the functions conferred by this section, a district council or unitary county council must consult the parish councils for which they are the responsible authority.
	(5) The number of members of a sub-committee of a standards committee of a district council or unitary county council, and the terms of office of those members, are to be fixed by the standards committee after consultation with the parish councils for which the district council or unitary county council are the responsible authority.
	(6) Where the standards committee of a district council or unitary county council discharges the functions conferred by this section, the standards committee--
	(a) must include at least one member of any of the parish councils for which the district council or unitary county council are the responsible authority, and
	(b) must ensure that at least one person falling within paragraph (a) is present at any meeting of the committee when matters relating to those parish councils, or the members of those parish councils, are being considered.
	(7) Where a sub-committee of the standards committee of a district council or unitary county council discharges the functions conferred by this section, the sub-committee must include--
	(a) at least one member of the standards committee who falls within section 38(3)(b), and
	(b) at least one member of any of the parish councils for which the district council or unitary county council are the responsible authority.
	(8) Regulations under section 38(5)(a) and (c) may make provision in relation to sub-committees appointed under this section, and regulations under section 38(5)(b) may make provision as to the appointment of persons falling within subsection (6)(a) or (7)(a) or (b) of this section.
	(9) Subsections (6A), (7), (8) and (10) of section 38 apply in relation to sub-committees of standards committees appointed under this section as they apply in relation to standards committees.
	(10) Subsections (4) and (6) of section 39 apply in relation to sub-committees of standards committees appointed under this section as they apply in relation to standards committees.
	(11) In relation to a parish council, any reference in the following provisions of this Part to the standards committee of a relevant authority is a reference--
	(a) to the standards committee of the district council or unitary county council which is the responsible authority in relation to the parish council, or
	(b) where that standards committee has appointed a sub-committee under this section, to that sub-committee.
	(12) A district council or unitary county council is the responsible authority--
	(a) in relation to a parish council which is not a common parish council, if the parish is situated within the area of the district council or county council,
	(b) in relation to a parish council which is a common parish council--
	(i) if the parishes in the group are wholly situated within that area, or
	(ii) where that is not the case, if the greatest number of local government electors for the parishes in the group is situated in that area.
	(13) In this section "unitary county council" means the council of a county in which there are no district councils.").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 40 [Standards Boards]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 308 to 313:
	Page 22, line 37, at end insert ("under this subsection").
	Page 22, line 42, leave out ("their members") and insert ("the members and co-opted members of such authorities").
	Page 22, line 42, at end insert (", and
	(c) may arrange for any such guidance to be made public").
	Page 22, line 45, at end insert ("under this subsection").
	Page 23, line 5, leave out ("their members") and insert ("the members and co-opted members of such authorities").
	Page 23, line 5, at end insert (", and
	(c) may arrange for any guidance so issued to be made public").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
	Schedule 3 [Standards Boards]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 314:
	Page 46, line 23, leave out from ("person") to ("an") and insert ("may not be employed as").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 314A:
	Page 46, line 26, after ("is") insert ("or has within the previous three years been").

Baroness Hamwee: I beg to move Amendment No. 314A and I shall not yield to the temptation to say, "moved formally". Paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 sets out certain disqualifications to being appointed as a member of a standards board. Those include being a member or an officer of a local authority. The amendment seeks to extend the disqualification to include membership or having been an officer within the previous three years. I take the point that it would be inappropriate for a current member or officer to serve on a standards board. Obviously there might be conflicts of interest and criteria must be laid down that will enable the public to know that the right thing is not only being done but is being seen to be done. I believe that that should include recent past membership or postholding.
	One carries one's personal baggage, but it diminishes in size as time goes on. Nevertheless, recent membership might give an individual a particular slant on affairs which would not be appropriate for a member of a standards board. In particular, I believe that the public would expect to see those with recent local authority membership being disqualified.

Lord Whitty: The Government feel that personal baggage can be positive as well as negative and that the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Baroness would be unduly restrictive. The problems she envisages have already been provided for in Clause 43(3), which states that an ESO cannot conduct an investigation in relation to a member of an authority if within the past five years that ESO has been a member of an authority. Clause 43(4) provides that an ESO who is directly or indirectly interested in any matter likely to be the subject of an investigation must disclose that interest to the standards board and must not take part in the investigation. Therefore, the issue of abuse is already covered. I believe that it will be unduly restrictive to exclude anyone who has had recent experience of membership or employment by a local authority from the possibility of being appointed an ESO. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that.

Baroness Hamwee: I was not seeking to deal with a particular interest or involvement. Of course, I accept what the Minister said, but it does not address the point that I was making. I believe that a little gap gives greater objectivity. However, that is another point of disagreement between ourselves and the Government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 315 to 319:
	Page 46, line 27, leave out ("(by co-option) of a committee") and insert ("of a committee, sub-committee, joint committee or joint sub-committee").
	Page 47, line 20, leave out ("case").
	Page 47, line 23, leave out ("case").
	Page 47, line 27, leave out ("case").
	Page 47, line 41, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("National Assembly for Wales").
	Page 48, line 36, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant").
	Page 48, line 36, leave out ("(or a member by co-option of a committee)").
	Page 48, line 37, at end insert ("or
	(b) a member of a committee, sub-committee, joint committee or joint sub-committee of that authority").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 41 [Written allegations]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 320 to 323:
	Page 23, line 9, leave out ("members") and insert ("co-opted member").
	Page 23, line 10, leave out first ("have") and insert ("has").
	Page 23, line 16, leave out ("members") and insert ("co-opted member").
	Page 23, line 16, leave out ("have") and insert ("has").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 323A not moved.]
	Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 42 [Functions of ethical standards officers]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 324 to 329A:
	Page 23, line 26, leave out ("members") and insert ("co-opted member").
	Page 23, line 26, leave out ("have") and insert ("has").
	Page 23, line 34, leave out ("members") and insert ("co-opted member").
	Page 23, line 34, leave out first ("have") and insert ("has").
	Page 24, line 4, leave out ("standards committee") and insert ("monitoring officer").
	Page 24, line 7, after ("referred") insert ("to").
	Page 24, line 8, leave out ("case").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 329B:
	Page 24, line 8, at end insert ("falling within section 50(1)").

Lord Whitty: I beg to move Amendment No. 329B and the other amendments referred to in this group. The Committee will recall that Part III was fortunate to be considered in draft by the Joint Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness. One of the recommendations of that committee was that the power of interim suspension currently vested in the ethical standards officer should be reserved to the adjudication panel, where appropriate, on application from the ESO. Government Amendment No. 329B and the amendments grouped with it give effect to that recommendation, making consequential amendments to the Bill where necessary. I commend this group of amendments which implement the Joint Committee's recommendations.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 43 [Conduct of investigations]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 330:
	Page 24, line 11, after ("member") insert ("or co-opted member").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendment No. 330A:
	Page 24, line 14, at end insert--
	("(2A) An ethical standards officer to whom an investigation under section 42 is assigned may--
	(a) cease the investigation at any stage before its completion, and
	(b) refer the matters which are the subject of the investigation to the monitoring officer of the relevant authority concerned.").

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendments Nos. 330A and 344C concern the referral of cases from the ethical standards officer (ESO) of the standards board to the monitoring officer of the local authority and the action that a local authority may take on them. As Members of the Committee know, we agree with many of the recommendations made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, in his report--the third report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. However, we have decided to go further than that report by establishing external independent investigation and adjudication. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, envisaged, we have assigned important roles to local authorities, through the adoption of codes of conduct and the establishment of standards committees. The draft Bill published in March did not, however, assign a role to local authorities in dealing with individual cases.
	That issue was considered by the Joint Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, and we are grateful for that consideration. The committee recommended that a,
	"power of temporary exclusion of members of the authority--perhaps for a period of up to four weeks--be given to the local standards committee".
	In their response to the Joint Committee, the Government accepted that there may be occasions when standards committees would wish to impose penalties on councillors but recognised that before conferring such powers, they would have to be assured that they would be exercised fairly and responsibly and dovetail with the statutory powers conferred on the adjudication panel.
	Because it will be for the standards committees to establish their credentials within their councils before becoming involved in what are potentially more controversial matters and, as we pointed out in our Joint Committee response, we need to be confident that an authority's procedures are robust and fair, the provisions in these amendments will enable the role played by the standards committees to grow as the system evolves. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 331:
	Page 24, line 16, leave out ("members") and insert ("co-opted member").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 331A and 331B not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 332:
	Page 24, line 19, leave out ("(by co-option) of a committee") and insert ("of any committee or sub-committee").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 44 agreed to.
	Clause 45 [Investigations: further provisions]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 333 and 334:
	Page 25, line 12, leave out ("members") and insert ("co-opted member").
	Page 25, line 27, leave out ("members") and insert ("co-opted member").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 46 [Restrictions on disclosure of information]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 334A:
	Page 26, line 32, leave out ("case").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 334B:
	Page 26, line 40, leave out from ("Kingdom") to end of line 41.

Baroness Hamwee: I am rather reluctant to do anything for the convenience of the Committee because I have a personal feeling--and I speak only for myself--that we are failing to do justice to some of the amendments, no doubt because there are some Members of this Committee who simply want to get to the end of the Bill.
	However, as it may be for the convenience of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 334C because the amendments deal with the same or a related point.
	Clause 46 deals with restrictions on the disclosure of information and Clause 46(1)(d) allows information to be disclosed if it is,
	"for the purposes of criminal proceedings in any part of the United Kingdom and the information in question was not obtained under section 45(2)".
	My two amendments deal with that paragraph. They suggest, first, that we exclude the reference to information not being obtained under Section 45(2) and, secondly, provide that if the disclosure is ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction--which I readily accept may be more contractual language than parliamentary but nevertheless serves the purpose--that information should be disclosed.
	In particular, I seek to understand the position of the information in connection with civil proceedings. Is information not to be made available for civil proceedings, or is it for criminal proceedings only if it is obtained in certain circumstances?
	I am concerned about the restrictions contained within the section, which on the face of it seems to be lifting restrictions. I wonder how that fits into the slightly wider scheme of things. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: I understand the apparent attractions of this amendment. We certainly expect the standards board and its ethical standards officers to co-operate with the police as far as is practical. They have wide powers to collect information. In addition to their rights of access to all relevant documents, they may make whatever inquiries they think appropriate and require whatever information or explanation they think necessary. That may require someone to attend before them.
	The Bill obliges individuals to comply with the requests from ESOs for information. If they do not comply, they may well be found guilty of a criminal offence. We believe that ESOs should have those powers. However, having those powers also means that we need to make them compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 6 of that convention provides the right for a fair trial. The recent judgment in the case of Saunders v UK ruled that some of the basic components of that are the right to silence and the right not to incriminate yourself. In the transfer of documents, one could find oneself in that territory.
	It would not therefore be correct for the Bill to compel someone to provide information which might then directly be used to incriminate them in a criminal prosecution. That could breach the individual's rights to silence and prejudice a criminal prosecution.
	If people are to be compelled to give evidence to an ESO, we need to ensure that that evidence cannot then be used in a criminal prosecution. We therefore believe that the amendment is flawed in that respect. I assure the Committee that that would not hamper subsequent criminal proceedings. Documents collected by the ESO could be shared, but it would be for the police to collect their own witness statements and not for the ESOs to pass them on.
	As regards Amendment No. 334C, we have included the restrictions in Clause 46 simply to protect individuals from the inappropriate disclosure of sensitive material. I am sure that the noble Baroness and the Committee will agree that we must be careful not to prejudice the ESOs' function of investigating allegations of misconduct. As such, access to information held should not undermine the investigation or punishment of breaches of the code. We are concerned that if information could be released for purposes other than those currently listed, that could happen. That may simply be because the information is released earlier than is helpful giving a councillor under investigation the opportunity to destroy related evidence, for example. In such cases it would be contrary to the public interest to disclose the information.
	The amendment, as it stands, would allow for anyone to seek a court order for the release of the information held. That could create obvious problems in the disclosure of confidential and personal information, much of which would be vital to an investigation and would be subject to the need to retain control of that information until the investigation is concluded. It would also allow for the disclosure of sensitive information which, although collected during the course of an investigation, would have no bearing on the final result.
	The amendment, as drafted, would override the other provisions of Clause 46 and would therefore remove these protections, and we could not accept it.

Baroness Hamwee: Those comments are helpful. It is a difficult area. I was going to say that it is a technical area, but it is much more than that.
	It occurs to me that I might take a little further advice on this matter and the obvious person from whom to take advice--I am sure that the Minister will regard this as helpful and not a threat--is my noble friend Lord Lester. That is not for this evening. I shall look at the matter again but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 334C not moved.]
	Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 47 [Reports]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment Nos. 335 to 337:
	Page 27, line 40, leave out ("standards committee") and insert ("monitoring officer").
	Page 28, line 3, leave out ("case").
	Page 28, line 3, after ("tribunal") insert ("falling within section 50(1)").
	Page 28, line 8, leave out ("a member or") and insert ("any members or co-opted").
	Page 28, line 11, after ("member") insert ("or co-opted member").

Lord Whitty: With the leave of the Committee I shall move Amendments Nos. 335 to 337 en bloc. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 48 [Interim reports]:

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: moved Amendment No. 338:
	Page 28, line 18, leave out ("or on their behalf").

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment No. 338 is a technical amendment to achieve our intention that ethical standards officers--ESOs--should have full responsibility for the conduct of investigations into allegations of councillor misconduct. In order to ensure that the function of conducting the investigation, and therefore responsibility for it, remains with the ESO, the Government are advised that it is necessary to make a technical amendment to remove the words, "on their behalf" from the draft Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 339 to 340A:
	Page 28, line 20, leave out ("a member or") and insert ("any members or co-opted").
	Page 28, line 27, leave out ("52(3)(b)") and insert ("52(3A)(b) or (3B)(b)").
	Page 28, line 29, leave out ("conclude") and insert ("include a recommendation").

Lord Whitty: With the leave of the Committee I shall move Amendments Nos. 339 to 340A en bloc. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 340B:
	Page 28, line 29, after ("suspended") insert ("or partially suspended").

Lord Whitty: In moving Amendment No. 340B I shall speak also to the related amendments. Amendment No. 340B deals with the provisions in relation to the extent of suspensions but the substantive amendment is Amendment No. 347 and I shall speak primarily to that.
	The Bill currently provides that a case tribunal may suspend a councillor from being a member of an authority or from any committee or sub-committee of an authority. In addition, Amendment No. 347 would enable the case tribunal to suspend the councillor from the executive or any other bodies on which they serve in their capacity as councillor, such as, for example, a school governor or local authority company.
	It is important that in making its recommendations the case tribunal has as many options as possible at its disposal. The tribunal must be able to impose the penalty best suited to a particular breach of the code. In certain circumstances it may be felt necessary to suspend the councillor from the whole council but it is conceivable that for many breaches suspensions from individual activities, such as membership of a planning committee or a scrutiny committee, would be more appropriate. We do not want to tie the hands of the tribunal so that it is limited in the number of choices it may make.
	Amendment No. 347 is the substantive amendment. The other amendments effectively carry it through. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 341 to 344B:
	Page 28, line 30, after ("member") insert ("or co-opted member").
	Page 28, line 30, leave out from second ("authority") to end of line 31.
	Page 28, line 31, at end insert--
	("( ) The period of suspension or partial suspension which may be recommended under subsection (3) must not exceed six months or (if shorter) the remainder of the person's term of office.").
	Page 28, line 32, after ("Where") insert ("an ethical standards officer produces").
	Page 28, line 32, after ("section") insert ("which").
	Page 28, line 32, leave out ("conclusion") and insert ("recommendation").
	Page 28, line 33, leave out from ("(3)") to end of line 46 and insert ("he must refer the matters which are the subject of the report to the president of the relevant Adjudication Panel for adjudication by a tribunal falling within section 50(1A).").
	Page 29, line 1, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("section").
	Page 29, line 2, after ("member") insert ("or co-opted member").
	Page 29, line 4, at end insert ("and
	( ) to the president of the relevant Adjudication Panel.").
	Page 29, line 5, leave out subsections (10) and (11) and insert--
	("(10A) Any reference in this Part to a person being partially suspended from being a member or co-opted member of a relevant authority is a reference to a person being prevented from exercising particular functions or having particular responsibilities as such a member or co-opted member.").

Lord Whitty: With the leave of the Committee I shall move Amendments Nos. 341 to 344B en bloc. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I can ask the Minister to explain the thinking behind Amendment No. 342A relating to the period of suspension or partial suspension. The Government have clearly gone through a thought process in arriving at this proposal. Perhaps in two sentences the Minister could share it with the Committee.

Lord Whitty: This was dealt with when we discussed Amendment No. 329B. I referred to the matter in that context. I believe that the noble Baroness said then that she would need to consider my comments. Amendment No. 342A refers to a,
	"period of suspension or partial suspension which ... must not exceed six months".
	I think I had better beg the indulgence of the Committee and that of the noble Baroness and say that I shall write to her on this particular proposition.

On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 343 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 344C:
	After Clause 48, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:MATTERS REFERRED TO MONITORING OFFICERS
	(".--(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision in relation to the way in which any matters referred to the monitoring officer of a relevant authority--
	(a) under section 43(2A), or
	(b) as a result of a finding under section 42(5)(c),
	are to be dealt with.
	(2) The provision which may be made by regulations under subsection (1) includes provision for or in connection with--
	(a) enabling a monitoring officer of a relevant authority to conduct an investigation in respect of any matters referred to him,
	(b) enabling a monitoring officer of a relevant authority to make a report, or recommendations, to the standards committee of the authority in respect of any matters referred to him,
	(c) enabling a standards committee of a relevant authority to consider any report or recommendations made to it by a monitoring officer of the authority (including provision with respect to the procedure to be followed by the standards committee),
	(d) enabling a standards committee of a relevant authority, following its consideration of any such report or recommendations, to take any action prescribed by the regulations (including action against any member or co-opted member of the authority who is the subject of any such report or recommendation).
	(3) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (2)(a) includes provision for or in connection with--
	(a) conferring powers on a monitoring officer of a relevant authority to enable him to conduct an investigation in respect of any matters referred to him,
	(b) conferring rights (including the right to make representations) on any member or co-opted member of a relevant authority who is the subject of any such investigation.
	(4) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (2)(d) includes provision for or in connection with--
	(a) enabling a standards committee of a relevant authority to censure a member or co-opted member of the authority,
	(b) enabling a standards committee of a relevant authority to suspend or partially suspend a person from being a member or co-opted member of the authority for a limited period,
	(c) conferring a right of appeal on a member or co-opted member of a relevant authority in respect of any action taken against him.
	(5) Nothing in subsection (2), (3) or (4) affects the generality of the power under subsection (1).
	(6) An ethical standards officer who refers any matters to the monitoring officer of a relevant authority--
	(a) under section 43(2A), or
	(b) as a result of a finding under section 42(5)(c),
	may give directions to the monitoring officer as to the way in which those matters are to be dealt with.
	(7) In its application to Wales, subsection (1) is to have effect as if for the reference to the Secretary of State there were substituted a reference to the National Assembly for Wales.").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 49 [Adjudication Panels]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 344D to 344L:
	Page 29, line 14, leave out ("case").
	Page 29, line 14, at end insert ("drawn from the Panel").
	Page 29, line 16, leave out ("case").
	Page 29, line 16, at end insert ("drawn from the Panel").
	Page 29, line 33, leave out ("case").
	Page 29, line 33, after ("tribunals") insert ("drawn from the Panel").
	Page 29, line 37, leave out ("case").
	Page 29, line 37, after ("tribunals") insert ("drawn from the Panel").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 50 [Case Tribunals]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 344M to 346C:
	Page 29, line 40, leave out ("for adjudication") and insert ("under section 47(3)").
	Page 29, line 42, at end insert--
	("(1A) Adjudications in respect of matters referred to the president of the relevant Adjudication Panel under section 48(4) are to be conducted by tribunals (referred to in this Part as interim case tribunals) consisting of not less than three members of the Panel.").
	Page 30, line 2, at end insert ("or interim case tribunal").
	Page 30, line 5, leave out ("for adjudication") and insert ("under section 47(3)").
	Page 30, line 5, at end insert--
	("( ) An interim case tribunal drawn from the relevant Adjudication Panel may conduct a single adjudication in relation to two or more matters which are referred to the president of the Panel under section 48(4).").
	Page 30, line 7, after ("tribunal") insert ("or interim case tribunal").
	Page 30, line 9, after ("tribunal") insert ("or interim case tribunal").
	Page 30, line 10, leave out ("members") and insert ("co-opted member").
	Page 30, line 12, leave out ("(by co-option) of a committee") and insert ("of any committee, sub-committee, joint committee or joint sub-committee").
	Page 30, line 13, at end insert--
	("( ) A person who is a member of an interim case tribunal which, as a result of an investigation under section 42, conducts an adjudication in relation to any person may not be a member of a case tribunal which, on the conclusion of that investigation, subsequently conducts an adjudication in relation to that person.").
	Page 30, line 15, after ("tribunals") insert ("or interim case tribunals").
	Page 30, line 18, after ("tribunals") insert ("or interim case tribunals").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 51 [Adjudications by case tribunals]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 346D to 346K:
	Page 30, line 22, after first ("tribunal") insert ("or interim case tribunal").
	Page 30, line 27, after ("tribunals") insert ("or interim case tribunals").
	Page 30, line 30, after ("tribunals") insert ("or interim case tribunals").
	Page 30, line 33, after ("attend") insert ("adjudications")
	Page 30, line 38, leave out ("conducted by a case tribunal").
	Page 30, line 40, leave out ("to a case tribunal").
	Page 31, line 3, leave out ("case").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 346L:
	After Clause 51, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:DECISIONS OF INTERIM CASE TRIBUNALS
	(".--(1) An interim case tribunal which adjudicates on any matters which are the subject of an interim report must reach one of the following decisions--
	(a) that the person to whom the recommendation mentioned in section 48(3) relates should not be suspended or partially suspended from being a member or co-opted member of the relevant authority concerned,
	(b) that that person should be suspended or partially suspended from being a member or co-opted member of the authority concerned in the way and for the period recommended in the report, or
	(c) that that person should be suspended or partially suspended from being a member or co-opted member of the authority concerned in a different way or for a different period from that recommended in the report.
	(2) The period mentioned in subsection (1)(c) must not exceed six months or (if shorter) the remainder of the person's term of office.
	(3) An interim case tribunal must give notice of its decision to the standards committee of the relevant authority concerned.
	(4) If the decision of an interim case tribunal is that a person should be suspended or partially suspended from being a member or co-opted member of the relevant authority concerned-
	(a) the notice must specify the date on which the suspension or partial suspension is to begin, and
	(b) the relevant authority must suspend or partially suspend the person in accordance with the notice.
	(5) A decision of an interim case tribunal under this section shall not prevent an ethical standards officer from continuing with the investigation under section 42 which gave rise to the interim report concerned and producing a report under section 47, or a further interim report under section 48, in respect of any matters which are the subject of the investigation.
	(6) The suspension or partial suspension of any person under this section shall cease to have effect on the day that a notice under section 52 is given to the standards committee of the relevant authority concerned with respect to that person.
	(7) A copy of any notice under this section must be given--
	(a) to any member or co-opted member of the relevant authority concerned who is the subject of the notice, and
	(b) to the monitoring officer of the relevant authority concerned.
	(8) An interim case tribunal must take reasonable steps to inform any person who made any allegation which gave rise to the investigation under section 42 of its decision under this section.
	(9) A person who is suspended or partially suspended under this section may appeal to the High Court--
	(a) against the suspension or partial suspension, or
	(b) against the length of the suspension.").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 52 [Decisions of case tribunals]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 346M to 357:
	Page 31, line 11, leave out ("is to adjudicate") and insert ("adjudicates").
	Page 31, line 21, leave out from beginning to ("member") in line 23 and insert ("suspended or disqualified in accordance with subsection (3A) or (3B).
	(3A) A member of a relevant authority may be--
	(a) suspended--
	(i) from exercising particular functions as a member of the authority, or
	(ii) from being a member of the authority, or
	(b) disqualified for being, or being elected or appointed, a member or co-opted member of that or any other relevant authority.
	(3B) A co-opted member of a relevant authority may be--
	(a) suspended from being a co-opted member of that authority, or
	(b) disqualified for being, or being elected or appointed, a member or co-opted").
	Page 31, line 26, leave out ("(3)(a),") and insert ("(3A)(a) or (3B)(a),").
	Page 31, line 30, leave out ("(3)(b),") and insert ("(3A)(b) or (3B)(b),").
	Page 31, line 34, leave out ("(3),") and insert ("(3A) or (3B),").
	Page 31, line 41, leave out ("(3)(a),") and insert ("(3A)(a) or (3B)(a),").
	Page 32, line 1, leave out from ("authority") to ("for") in line 3.
	Page 32, line 3, after ("period") insert (", and to the extent,").
	Page 32, line 9, leave out ("(3)(b),") and insert ("(3A)(b) or (3B)(b),").
	Page 32, line 14, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").
	Page 32, line 14, after ("elected") insert ("or appointed").
	Page 32, line 15, after ("member") insert ("or co-opted member").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Baxi Partnership Limited Trusts Bill [H.L.]

Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.
	House adjourned at ten minutes before midnight.